Short Note : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and is directed against the order dated 25th June 1977 (Annexure-F) passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Indore, under section 53 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, superseding the committee of the Malav Vipanan Sahakari Samiti, Mhow, district Indore, hereinafter called the Society, registered under the Act. 2. Held: The requirements of section 53(7) of the Act have been held to be mandatory in Radheshyam v. Government of M.P., ( 1972 JLJ 435 ). In the instant case, it is not disputed that the notice by the Deputy Registrar to the President of the Committee to show cause why action against the Committee be not taken under section 53 of the Act was issued on 17th May 1977, and a copy of the said notice was sent to the financing bank viz. the Indore Premier Co• operative Bank Ltd. Section 53(7) of the Act reads as under :- "53. (7) Before taking action under sub-section (1) in respect of a financing bank or in respect of society indebted to a financing bank the Registrar shall consult, in the former case, the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and in the latter case, the financing bank concerned, regarding such action. If the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited or the financing bank, as the case may be, fails to communicate its views within forty-five days of the receipt by such bank of the request soliciting consultation, it shall be presumed that the Madhya-Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Limited, or the financing bank concerned, as the case may be, agreed with the proposed action." 3. Before the expiry of forty-five days from the date of receipt of the copy of the show cause notice sent to the financing Bank, assuming that sending such a copy amounted to soliciting consultation, the order superseding the Committee was passed under section 53 of the Act, on 25th June 1977. It is admitted that no communication was ever received by the Deputy Registrar from the financing bank. In these circumstances, it must be held that the order of supersession was passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (7) of section 53 of the Act. It is admitted that no communication was ever received by the Deputy Registrar from the financing bank. In these circumstances, it must be held that the order of supersession was passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (7) of section 53 of the Act. Learned Government Advocate urged on behalf of the State that as the members of the Committee had resigned on 1st June 1977, it was not necessary to comply with the provision of subsection (7) of section 53 of the Act. The contention cannot be upheld. The order passed by respondent No.2 superseding the Committee signifies that the resignations of the members of the Committee were not accepted. If, as urged on behalf of the respondents, the respondents chose to take action under section 53 of the Act superseding the Committee, for this action of the respondents creating a vacuum in the society as alleged by the respondents, respondent No.2 was bound to comply with the requirements of section 53(7) of the Act. Respondent No.2, who passed the impugned order, having failed to do so, the impugned order deserves to be struck down on this grand alone. However, we make it dear, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Bansilal v. Asst. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, (M.P. No. 68 of 1971, decided on 23rd July 1973), that respondent No.2 is free to pass an order in accordance with law under section 53(1) of the Act afresh, after complying with the requirements of sub-section (7) of section 53 of the Act, 1972 JLJ 435 , relied on. Petition allowed.