( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioners challenging an order passed by joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, under Section 16 (3) of the Madhya pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 directing amalgamation of the petitioners' Society viz. Adivasi Bahu Uddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Niwas with respondent No. 4 Society called, Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Niwas. ( 2 ) IT is alleged by the petitioners that they are the share holders members of the Bahu uddeshiya Society, district Mandla. This society was registered as multi-purpose society vide, registration No. 281 dated 4-1-1947 and the area of operation of this society extends to 20 villager around Niwas. The objects of the society are to purchase and sell consumer goods, agricultural implements, seed, fertilizers and generally to undertake all such work as may improve the economic conditions of its members. This society has in all 334 members of which 32 are Scheduled Tribes, 35 are Scheduled Caste and the rest are general. Its paid up share capital is Rs. 3,417. The Society has permanent assets of its own in the form of one building with open enclosures which is valued at Rs. 17,430. According to the audit note for the year ending 30th June 1978, the society carried on business worth rs. 10,59,477. 93 gross profit was Rs. 10,849. 34 and net profit was rs. 10,849. 34 and net profit was Rs. 3,612. 92. The society has no liability to repay loans to any society, person or the State Government. ( 3 ) ON 26-11-1975, it is alleged that a meeting of various Heads of departments presided over by the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh was held to consider all questions of reorganising co-operative societies of the areas falling under the Scheme for Tribals. The meeting also reviewed the question of retaining the multipurpose and labour co-operative societies existing in the areas falling under the Tribunal Scheme. It was found that the Tribunal Societies had failed to achieve their objects and were running in losses. In order to infuse life in them, the said committee resolved to reorganise the Tribal societies by amalgamating the multi purpose co-operative societies working in the project area and if such multi purpose societies were not agreeable, the committee also took a decision to force amalgamation by exercising powers under Section 16 (3) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies act. In order to infuse life in them, the said committee resolved to reorganise the Tribal societies by amalgamating the multi purpose co-operative societies working in the project area and if such multi purpose societies were not agreeable, the committee also took a decision to force amalgamation by exercising powers under Section 16 (3) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies act. ( 4 ) IT is alleged that pursuant to the aforesaid decision, on 28-2-1978 the president of the petitioners society was served with a notice dated 23-2-1978 purporting to be a notice under Section 16 (3) of the Act. But it is alleged that this notice only mentions that pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting presided over by the Chief Secretary, the multipurpose Co-operative societies have to be amalgamated with Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti, respondent No. 4 and since the petitioners' society has refused, this notice was issued in exercise of powers under Section 16 (3) to state if it has any objection on or before 10-3-1978. ( 5 ) THE President of the petitioners' Society convened a meeting of the executive Committee, which consists of petitioners 2 to 6 as its members and it unanimously resolved to oppose the amalgamation and sent a reply to that effect. Pursuant to the resolution, the reply was sent on 15-3-1978. ( 6 ) THAT the Joint Registrar, without giving any further notice, or opportunity or information, passed au order on 17-10-1978 directing re-organisation by amalgamating the petitioners' society with respondent no. 4. ( 7 ) THE petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 77 of the Act before the State Government against the order of the Joint Registrar and the state Government through special secretary dismissed the appeal by orders dated 8-2-1980. ( 8 ) IT is contended by the petitioners that the scheme of Section 16 (3)contemplates that if the Registrar is satisfied that it is essential in the public interest or in the interest of the effected society or necessary to secure the proper management of any society, he direct the re-organisation. According to the petitioners, therefore, before exercising powers under Section 16 (3)the Registrar ought to express satisfaction as regards : (i) it is public interest; or (ii) in the interest of members of the affected society ; or (iii) is necessary to secure proper management. According to the petitioners, therefore, before exercising powers under Section 16 (3)the Registrar ought to express satisfaction as regards : (i) it is public interest; or (ii) in the interest of members of the affected society ; or (iii) is necessary to secure proper management. It is contended that neither the notice nor the order of the Joint Registrar indicates satisfaction about-any one of these 3 things. There is no expression of satisfaction on the basis of reasons stated therein satisfying the requirement under any one of the three heads uader clause (3) of Section 16. It is also contended that even the order passed by the State on appeal suffers from the same defect. ( 9 ) IT is also contended that the Joint Registrar in the notice as well as in the order has referred to the decision taken in the high powered committee presided over by the Chief Secretary and it appears that in order to carry out the decision of that committee, the Joint Registrar proceeded to pass the impugned order without applying his mind to the requirement of Section 16 (3), ( 10 ) IT is further contended that clause (4) of Section 16 provides for the procedure and that has been provided in Rule 11 and it contemplates that if the Registrar has chosen to take a decision under Section 16 a draft scheme for re-organisation has to be prepared and it had to be notified to the petitioners' society so that it could be placed before its members and all the members have a right to file objections and this procedure as contemplated under Rule 11 also has not been complied with. It is, therefore, contended that the order passed by the Joint Registrar amalgamating the petitioners' society with respondent No. 4 and maintained by the State Government, deserves to be set aside. ( 11 ) IT is plain from the reading of the notice and order passed by joint Registrar that there are no reasons stated on the basis of which satisfacting has been recorded about any one of the three requirements of clause (3) of Section 16. It is also apparent that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 11 (7) has not been followed. It is also apparent that the procedure as prescribed under Rule 11 (7) has not been followed. An identical question was considered by a division Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 476 of 1979 and it was held that the order passed for re-organisation or amalgamation of the society, which is passed without complying with Rule 11 (7) and section 16 (3) could not be justified. It is, therefore, plaint that as the procedure as prescribed under Rule 11 (7) was not followed and the satisfaction as contemplated under Section 16 not having been arrived at, the order could not be maintained. ( 12 ) THE Joint Registrar and the State Government even omitted to notice that the petitioners' society is a multipurpose society and its merger with a Sewa Samiti which is only a credit society itself will create difficult situation as the aims and objects of the petitioners' multipurpose society are different from that of respondent No. 4. It is also clear that the petitioners' society is in good condition and it appears that the learned Joint Registrar did not apply his mind at all to various questions which under Section 16 he was bound to consider. ( 13 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the joint Registrar dated. 17-10-1978 and the order passed by the State Government dated 8-9-1980, 8/9-2-1980 are hereby quashed. In the circumstances of these case parties are directed to bear their own costs. The amount of security deposited by the petitioners shall be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed. .