ORDER P.V. Dixit, C.J. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners, the Panna Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Ltd., Panna, and the Society's Secretary Budhulal Saraf, seek a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Panna, on 12/14th February 1963 u/s 69(2)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing the winding up of the Petitioner-Society. The Petitioner's first and second appeals before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Madhya Pradesh, and the State Government against the order of the Assistant Registrar were dismissed. A writ of certiorari is sought also for quashing the affirming decisions of the appellate authorities. The material facts are that the Petitioner, the Panna Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd., was registered under the Vindhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1949. While this Ordinance was in force, a notice was issued to the Secretary to the Society on 30th September 1961 by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Panna, calling upon him to show cause why the Society of which he was the Secretary should not be dissolved for certain reasons stated in the notice. The intended act of dissolution purported to be in the exercise of the powers given to the Registrar u/s 39 of the Ordinance. It appears that this notice was not served on the Petitioners and no reply was filed by them within the time stated in the notice. According to the return filed by the Respondents, the Petitioners refused to accept the notice. On this notice no further action was taken against the Petitioners for some time even after the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which repealed, inter alia, the Vindhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Ordinance, 1949. The new Act came into force on 12th May 1962. According to the return filed by the Respondents, when the Petitioners did not reply to the show cause notice given to them on 30th September 1961 it was suggested by the Office of the Assistant Registrar that action u/s 69(1) of the new Act should be taken against the applicants. The Assistant Registrar did not accept this suggestion and decided that the Society should be wound up u/s 69(2)(b) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar implemented this decision by passing the impugned order on 12/14th February 1963. The Assistant Registrar did not accept this suggestion and decided that the Society should be wound up u/s 69(2)(b) of the Act. The Assistant Registrar implemented this decision by passing the impugned order on 12/14th February 1963. The Petitioners' contention is that on the notice which was issued to them on 30th September 1961 for dissolution of the Society u/s 39 of the Ordinance, no order with regard to the winding up of the Society could be made u/s 69(2)(b) of the new Act. Shri Singh, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, argued that an order u/s 69(2)(b) for the winding up of a Society could be made only if in the opinion of the Registrar the Society has been working mainly for promoting the interest of any individual or group of individuals and not of the members generally; and that the Registrar is required to form this opinion only after giving to the Society concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action of winding up and after considering the representation, if any, made by the Society. It was pointed out that the Vidhya Pradesh Ordinance did not contain any provision similar to Section 69(2) of the Act; that Section 39(1) of the Ordinance was analogous to Section 69(1) of the new Act; and that consequently a notice u/s 39(1) of the Ordinance for dissolution could not in any sense be regarded as a notice to show cause for the winding up of the Society u/s 69(2)(b) of the new Act. In our opinion, the contention put forward by Learned Counsel for the Petitioners must be given effect to. Section 39(1) of the Ordinance ran as follows: 39. Dissolution.-(i) If the Registrar, after an enquiry has been held u/s 35, or after an inspection has been made u/s 30, or on receipt of an application made by three-fourth of the members of a registered society, is of opinion that the society ought to be dissolved, he may cancel the registration of the society. Section 35 of the Ordinance permitted the Registrar to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society. Section 36 gave to him the power to inspect the books of the society if any creditor of the society applied to him for inspection. Section 35 of the Ordinance permitted the Registrar to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a registered society. Section 36 gave to him the power to inspect the books of the society if any creditor of the society applied to him for inspection. It is clear from reading Sections 35, 36, and 39 of the Ordinance together that action u/s 39 for the dissolution of a registered society could be taken only if the Registrar, after an enquiry u/s 35 or after an inspection u/s 36, formed the opinion that the society should be dissolved. Section 69(1) of the new Act contains provisions similar to those which occurred in Section 39 of the Ordinance. The new Act, however, gives to the Registrar the power to make an order with regard to the winding up of a society on certain grounds in addition to those stated in Section 69(1). That power to be found in Sub-section (2) of Section 69, so far as is material here, is as follows: (2) The Registrar may of his own motion make an order directing the winding up of a society,- * * * (b) where in the opinion of the Registrar the society has been working mainly for promoting the interest of any individual or group of individuals and not of the members generally;.... * * * The Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance did not contain any provision like Section 69(2). On a comparison of the provisions contained in Section 69(1) of the new Act and Section 39 (i) of the Ordinance and Section 69(2) of the new Act, it is obvious that a notice given to a society for its dissolution on the ground or grounds falling within Section 39(i) or Section 69(1) cannot in any sense be regarded as a notice for the winding up of a society u/s 69(2) on any of the grounds specified in the three clauses of Sub-section (2). The formation of opinion by the Registrar for purposes of Section 39 (i) of the Ordinance or Section 69(1) of the new Act with regard to the constitution, working and financial condition of the society as a result of an enquiry or inspection of the books of the society is a matter altogether different from the opinion he is required to form on the question whether the society has been working mainly for promoting the interest of any individual or group of individuals and not of the members generally for the purpose of making a winding up order u/s 69(2)(b) of the new Act. Now, Sub-section (3) of Section 69 enjoins that no order under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) thereof shall be passed unless the society concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order and the representation, if any, made by it is considered. The giving of a reasonable opportunity for showing cause and for making a representation is essential for the validity of an order against a society u/s 69(1) or 69(2). In order to enable the society to show cause and make a representation, it is necessary that the show cause notice must tell the society the ground or grounds on which the intended action of winding up is proposed to be based. When the grounds oh which the society can be dissolved or wound up have been specified in Section 69, a general notice to the society asking it to show cause why it should not be dissolved would be utterly ineffective and one not giving to the society a reasonable opportunity of showing cause and making a representation against the proposed order. A notice for winding up based on Section 39 (i) of the Ordinance or Section 69(1) of the new Act cannot clearly be regarded as a valid notice giving to the society concerned a reasonable opportunity of showing cause and making a representation against the action proposed to be taken on grounds falling u/s 69(2). In the present case, admittedly, after the coming into force of the new Act no fresh notice was issued to the Petitioners asking them to show cause why a winding up order should not be made u/s 69(2)(b). In view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 69 such a notice was essential. In the present case, admittedly, after the coming into force of the new Act no fresh notice was issued to the Petitioners asking them to show cause why a winding up order should not be made u/s 69(2)(b). In view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 69 such a notice was essential. On the notice which was issued to the Petitioners on 30th September 1961 u/s 39 (i) of the Ordinance, an order u/s 69(2)(b) could not clearly be made for the simple reason that the aforesaid notice did not give any opportunity to the Petitioners at all of showing cause and making a representation against the order of winding up proposed to be based on the grounds specified in Section 69(2)(b). In our opinion, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 12/14th February 1963 u/s 69(2)(b) of the new Act directing the winding up of the Petitioner-Society, not being one in conformity with Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 69, cannot be held to be legal. It must, therefore, be quashed. For these reasons, this petition is allowed. The order dated 12/14th February 1963 of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, directing the winding up of the Petitioner-Society and all the consequential orders passed by him are quashed. The decisions of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, and the State Government upholding in appeals the winding up order are also quashed. The applicants shall have costs of this petition. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 100. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the Petitioners. Final Result : Allowed