P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who are the Board of Directors of a Cooperative society called "the Sahakari Karya Sanstha, Shiksha Vibhag, Maryadit, m. P. Ltd,". vhich is registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the show cause notice dated 10th August, 1984 (Annexure-A) issued under Section 53 (2) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act by respondent no. 1, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhopal calling upon the petitioner, why the Society should not be superceded under Section 53 (1) of the said Act, for the reasons stated therein. The petitioner-Society gave reply to the said show cause notice by Annexure-B dated 3-9-1984 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. Hence this petition. ( 2 ) A perusal of the show cause notice issued to the petitioners would indicate that a copy of the said notice was also sent to the President, Indore premier Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Indore as also to the M. P. Rajya Sahakari bank Maryadit, Bhopal under Section 53 (7) of the Act with a direction to file their objections within 15 days, failing which it would be presumed that these banks are agreeable to the proposed action of supersession, which the respondent no. 1 intends to take. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the petitioner has been that according to the provisions of Sectioa 53 (7) of the said Act, the respondent No. 1 ought to have given 45 days time for effective consultation as both these Banks are the financing banks with whom the petitioner-Society has dealings and that so much time having not been given, the proposed action is bad in law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, relying upon the decision reported in Board of directors of Shri Ganesh Sahakari Vipan (Marketing) Sanstha Maryadit v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Khar gone, [ 1982 MPLJ 46 ] submitted that the show cause notice deserves to be quashed. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a copy of the show cause notice Annexure-A has also been sent to respondent No. 2, joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Indore Division, Indore asking him to suggest the name of the Prabhakari Adhikari who could be appointed in case the petitioner-Society is superceded. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a copy of the show cause notice Annexure-A has also been sent to respondent No. 2, joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Indore Division, Indore asking him to suggest the name of the Prabhakari Adhikari who could be appointed in case the petitioner-Society is superceded. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that by sending such a copy to respondent No. 2 the petitioner apprehends that the respondent No. 1 has already made up his mind to supercede the Society. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the present body of the Board of Directors was elected on 9-1-83 and the allegations made in the show cause notice pertains to the period when the Society was managed by an administrator appointed by the Registrar and consequently no valid grounds were made out for issuing such a show cause notice. ( 5 ) THE respondent in the returns have submitted that the present petition filed by the petitioner is premature, firstly because no final action has taken by respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the show cause notice and, secondly merely because 15 days' time is given to the financial Banks to have their say in the matter, there is no bar that the consultation could not be made effective even within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the letter sent to them. He, therefore, submitted that the maximum period given to these Banks under Section 53 (7) is 45 days till which time the necessary consultation could be made. He further submitted that according to sub-sectioa (7) of the said act, consultation is necessary provided the Society is indebted to a financial bank. In tne present case according to the petitioner themselves, in reply to the show cause notice they had categorically stated that the petitioner-Society is self reliant, that its financial position is very sound ; that they have kept a deposit of Rs. 8 lacs in different Banks and that they have not obtained any loan from the financial Banks, either for giving loan to the Members of the society or has obtained any loan for the construction of the Society's building. 8 lacs in different Banks and that they have not obtained any loan from the financial Banks, either for giving loan to the Members of the society or has obtained any loan for the construction of the Society's building. Therefore the provisions of Section 53 (7) of the Act, in the present case are not at all attracted, even though copies of the show cause notice containing the reasons why the petitioner Society should not be superseded were sent to these financial Banks. He further submitted that it is also not the case of the petitioner that even till the date when the present petition was filed on 19-9-84, the financial Banks had raised any objection to the proposed supersession or that before expiry of the period of 45 days the respondent No. 1 had passed any final order regarding the supersession of the Society. ( 6 ) HE, therefore, submitted that the respondent No. 1 ia pursuance of the provisions of Section 53 (1) of the said Act has not passed any order removing the committee and appointing a person to manage the affairs of the Society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance as mentioned therein. He also urged that as the petitioner-Society has given reply to the show cause notice and no final action has been taken so far, the petitioner's grievance is imaginery and baseless as the petitioner can still try to convince the Registrar that no valid grounds are made out for supersessions of the Committee. He, therefore, submitted that the authority cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not help them at all. He also pointed out that merely because a copy of the show cause notice was sent to respondent No. 2, by no stretch of imagination It can be assumed that the Registrar had already made up his mind. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner on that basis is devoid of substance. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner in reply did not dispute this fact that the petitioner-Society is not indebted to any of the financial Banks. In these circumstances, obviously the petitioner has no case as the provisions of section 53 (7) of the said Act are not at all attracted and this petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground, being devoid of merit. In these circumstances, obviously the petitioner has no case as the provisions of section 53 (7) of the said Act are not at all attracted and this petition deserves to be dismissed on this short ground, being devoid of merit. ( 8 ) AT the hearing of this petition the petitioner-Society has submitted aa application I. A. No. 3637/85 stating therein that the term of the elected Board of Directors is expiring on 8-1-86 as the present body of the Board of Directors was elected on 9-1-83 and that the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Society in their meeting held on 15-9-85 have passed a resolution to hold new elections on 5th January, 1986 and have accordingly moved the Registrar to make necessary arrangements for holding elections. But it is not necessary for this Court to pass any orders on the said application as that is a matter between the petitioner-Society and the Registrar, with which we are not concerned at this stage. ( 9 ) IN the result this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Consequently the stay order passed earlier stands vacated. Counsel's fee Rs. 250/ -. Petition dismissed. .