JUDGMENT - N.D. VYAS, J.:---By the present petition which is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 1st June, 1987 and 17th July, 1987 passed by the respondent No. 1 and the order in appeal dated 29th November, 1988 passed by the respondent No. 2. 2.The petitioners are a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. The said Society is a labour Society. The Society was served with an order dated 1st June, 1987 passed by the respondent No. 1 which is impugned in the present petition. This order happened to be an interim order passed by the respondent No. 1. After the said order was passed, the final order was passed on 17th July, 1987 and the same was served on the petitioner Society. It is the petitioner Society's grievance that neither any notice was given to the petitioner Society nor any reasons were given while passing the final order dated 17th July, 1987. The petitioners made this grievance when they preferred their appeal under section 104 of the said Act to the respondent No. 2, however, the said objections were ignored and the appeal happened to be dismissed on 29th November, 1988. Therefore, the present writ petition. 3.There is no affidavit in reply filed by the respondents. The averments made in the petition therefore go uncontroverted. As far as the first limb of the argument of Shri Kankaria is concerned, viz. no notices have been given of any hearing by the respondent No. 1, there is nothing on record to show that in fact such hearing notices were given to the petitioner Society. In fact, the order in appeal dated 29th November 1988 specifically refers to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner Society before the appellate Authority that no opportunity was given to the petitioner Society of filing any objections. Thus, Shri Kankaria is right in his submission. 4.As far as the second limb of his argument is concerned, viz., no reasons are given in the final liquidation order passed by the respondent No. 1, a bare perusal of the said order is enough to come to the conclusion that Shri Kankaria is also right there. Thus, Shri Kankaria is right in his submission. 4.As far as the second limb of his argument is concerned, viz., no reasons are given in the final liquidation order passed by the respondent No. 1, a bare perusal of the said order is enough to come to the conclusion that Shri Kankaria is also right there. The said final order, except narrating the provisions of the said Act and except saying that the interim order passed on 1st June, 1987 is confirmed, does not give any reasons. Coming to the last order which is challenged in the petition, at the stage of appeal, a report was called for by the Co-operative Officer and that is the report on which reliance was placed by the Appellate Authority. The report discloses that on 7th June, 1987, there were only 8 members of the Society and that new members were accepted only after 28th August, 1987. Thus, for the first time, one finds in the appellate order as to what had probably weighed with the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Surely, a party against whom an action is sought to be taken should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Again, surely when an order is passed, the order is required to mention reasons as to why such order is passed. The requirement of reasons is essential and which should disclose that there has been proper application of mind and that neither any extraneous facts are taken into consideration nor any non-germane matter has been considered. Ex-facie, all the three orders appear to be illegal and therefore, they are required to be quashed. 5.In these circumstances, the petition requires to be made absolute and is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Petition allowed.