SOHANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a parities under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows : the petitioner society is a Co-operative Society registered under the m. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, the bye-laws of the society have been registered. By an order dated 22nd December, 1981, the Assistant registrar, Co-operative Societies directed the petitioner society, purporting to exercise powers conferred on him by sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act to amend the bye-laws of the Society as directed by him. The petitioner-society preferred objections, but the Assistant Registrar passed an order (Annexure V)on 18th February, 1982 overruling the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner society and registered the amended bye-laws. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed this petition. ( 3 ) SHRI Sethi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that section 12 (!) of the Act empowered the Registrar to require the society to make any amendment of the bye-laws of a society only when such amendment was necessary or desirable in the interest of the society. It was urged that in the instant case, there was no application of mind by the Assistant Registrar to this aspect of the matter and hence the order passed by him, deserved to be quashed. ( 4 ) IN the return filed on behalf of the respondent it was stated that the respondent had acted in pursuance of the directions issued to him by the registrar by memo No. 4013 dated 4th August, 1981, to convert the Cooperative societies functioning in the areas referred to in that memorandum into "adam Jati Seva Sahakari Sansatha" and hence the respondent had passed the impugned orders acting in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 12 of the Act. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the teamed counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be allowed. Section 12 of the Act. which empowers the Registrar to direct the amendment of bye-laws of the society reads as under :12. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the teamed counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be allowed. Section 12 of the Act. which empowers the Registrar to direct the amendment of bye-laws of the society reads as under :12. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or the rules or bye-laws, if the Registrar considers that an amendment of the bye-laws of a society is necessary or desirable in the interest of such society, he may, by an order in writing to be served OB the society in the prescribed manner, require the society to make the amendment within such time as may be specified in such order. (2) If the society fails to make uany such amendment within the time specified by the, Ragistrar in his order under sub-section (1), the registrar may, after giving the society an opprtunity to state its objections, if any register such amendment and issue a certified copy thereof to such society and thereupon each amendment shall be binding on the Society and its members. From a perustl of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Registrar canexercise powers under the aforesaid provisions only when he has come to the conclusion that any particular amendment of a bye-law of the society is necessary or desirable in the interest of that society. The satisfaction of the registrar that the proposed amendments are necessary or desirable in tbe interest of the society, is a condition precedent for exercising powers conferred by Section 12 of the Act. In the instant case, neither in the impugned order nor in the return, there is anything to indicate that the respondent bad applied his mind to the question as to whether the proposed amendments were desirable or necessary in the interest of the petitioner-society. We asked the learned counsel for the State to point out any material on the basis of which it could be held that the respondent had considered that the proposed amendments were desirable or necessary in the interest of the petitioner-society. The learned counsel for the State was unable to point out any such material. In point of fact, the stand taken by tbe respondent is that he had acted as directed by the higher authorities. The learned counsel for the State was unable to point out any such material. In point of fact, the stand taken by tbe respondent is that he had acted as directed by the higher authorities. This stand lends assurance to the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that there was non-application of mind by the respondent in passing the impugned order. In these circumstances, it must be held that the respondent had failed to exercise powers in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. ( 6 ) FOR all these reasons, this petition is allowed. The order dated 18th february 1982, passed by the Assistant Registrar (Annexure V) is quahsed. In the circumstances of tbe case, parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. Security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioners. Petition allowed. .