JUDGMENT W. Broome, J. - This writ petition, filed in December 1969 by the Mursan Sahkari Sangh Limited of Mursan (Distt. Aligarh), challenges an order (Annexure 6) passed by the Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Agra on 28-10-1969, quashing resolutions 1 to 10 passed at the annual general meeting of the Sangh, held on 9-10-1969. 2. The impugned order was passed by the Dy. Registrar in exercise of the power conferred by S. 128 of the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, which permits the Registrar to annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management or by the general body of any co-operative society, if he is of opinion that the resolution is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, rules or bye-laws of the society; and it was occasioned by a report (Annexure A to the counter-affidavit) submitted by the Asstt. Development Officer, pointing out that the following provisions had been contravened:-- (a) 15 clear days notice had not been given, as provided by bye-law 47, inasmuch as the agenda for the annual general meeting of 9-10-1969 was issued on 29-9-1969 (though the date was subsequently overwritten to change it into 25-9-1969); (b) the voters' list had not been prepared and signed by the Board of Directors, as required by R. 439; (c) the date for holding the annual general meeting had not been fixed by the Board of Directors, as required by R. 442(1); (d) Ram Saran Singh, who was elected as Director at the meeting in question was permitted to preside over the meeting in contravention of R. 442(2). 3. The petitioner asserts that there has been no infringement of any rule or bye-law in this case. It is contended that there is over-writing in the agenda and that this agenda for the annual general meeting was actually issued on 25-9-1969, giving fifteen clear days' notice. 3. The petitioner asserts that there has been no infringement of any rule or bye-law in this case. It is contended that there is over-writing in the agenda and that this agenda for the annual general meeting was actually issued on 25-9-1969, giving fifteen clear days' notice. It is further contended that the list of members required by R. 439 is in existence in the form of lists of the delegates of Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Limited Mursan and Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Mursan (East); that there is no provision in the bye laws requiring the Board of Directors to fix the date for the general meeting; and that the contravention of R. 422(2) was only technical, because there was no contest for the election, only 12 candidates having been proposed for the 12 vacancies by the unanimous choice of the general body. The suggestion is that the Dy. Registrar had no records of the Sangh before him when he passed the impugned order and did not apply his mind properly to the questions in issue, with the result that the order is arbitrary and unfair; and it is further argued that since it was a quasi-judicial matter the Dy. Registrar, before passing the order, should have given an opportunity to the Sangh or its committee of management or the persons elected to put forward their side of the case. 4. It certainly seems that the impugned order was passed by the Dy. Registrar without looking at the original records. Annexure 'A' to the counter-affidavit which was sent from the Hathras Block Development Office on 25-10-1969, merely states that "copy of the proceedings and agenda are enclosed"; and the impugned order was passed by the Dy. Registrar at Aligarh on 28-10-1969. It is difficult to understand in the circumstances how the Dy. Registrar could have satisfied himself that the original agenda for the meeting showed signs of overwriting. And even if there was overwriting, that by itself would by no means be sufficient to justify the conclusion that the agenda had been issued on 29-9-1969 instead of 25-9-1969, for it is quite conceivable that at first a wrong date was written by a slip of the pen and then had to be corrected. The second ground of attack, viz. The second ground of attack, viz. that the voters' list had not been prepared could also not be substantiated by a mere perusal of the copies submitted to the Dy. Registrar by the Asstt. Block Development Officer. In the circumstances, there appears to be considerable force in the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed arbitrarily, without perusal of the relevant documents and without applying the mind. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently argued that S. 128 of the UP Cooperative Societies Act merely requires the Registrar to form an 'opinion'; and he has cited a number of authorities in support of his contention that where a mere opinion has to be formed, this Court cannot enquire into its correctness or propriety. It seems to me, however, that in a case where it can be shown that an opinion has been arrived at arbitrarily, without consulting the relevant material, the Court is fully entitled to interfere and quash the so-called opinion. 6. A perusal of S. 128 of the Act shows that the opinion required to be given by the Registrar is of an objective nature. He has to satisfy himself whether the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws have been infringed or not. In so doing he clearly acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and the rules of natural justice require that he should give an opportunity to the persons likely to be affected by his order to state their side of the case before any decision is taken. It is further to be noted that u/S. 98 of the Act the order passed by the Registrar u/S. 128 is appealable. This too suggests that the decision is quasi-judicial and that the party concerned should be given an opportunity of putting forward his case before the order is passed. 7. This writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs, the impugned order of the Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 28-10-1969 being quashed. It will of course be open to take fresh action u/S. 128 of the Act in accordance with law, if he so desires.