K. R. WAS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners, by way of this petition, challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the action of the Joint Registrar (Credit) Co-operative societies, Gujarat State-respondent No. 3 herein of issuing show-cause notice dated 15/05/1997 in purported exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Sec. 81 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") by contending that respondent No. 3 has no right, power or authority to issue such notice after obtaining requisite permission from the Reserve Bank of India- respondent No. 5 herein under Sec. 115a of the Act. Alternately, it is prayed that if any permission is granted by respondent No. 5, the same is ex-fade illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires since without providing an opportunity of being heard, no such permission can be granted by respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the said permission cannot be acted upon. ( 2 ) ). In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners, it is necessary to narrate certain facts in brief. The petitioner-Bank is a co-operative society registered under the Act. The petitioner-Bank is also an insured co-operative Bank as defined under the provisions of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Deposit Insurance Act" ). The functioning of the petitioner-Bank is governed under various provisions of the Co-operative Societies act as well as under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, under the various directions/ instructions of the Government of Gujarat and the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time and also subject to the provisions of Bye-laws sanctioned by the authorities. The functioning of the petitioner-Bank is governed under various provisions of the Co-operative Societies act as well as under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, under the various directions/ instructions of the Government of Gujarat and the Reserve Bank of India issued from time to time and also subject to the provisions of Bye-laws sanctioned by the authorities. It appears that the overall performance of the petitioner-Bank was not satisfactory also from the angles of public deposit transactions, loan accounts, debt equity ratio, maintenance of required statutory balance with the corresponding bank and ultimately of the Reserve Bank of India, which is an Apex Bank of the country under which the petitioner-Bank is regulated, the Reserve Bank of India, considering all the aspects, has issued a letter dated 13/02/1997, Annexure "d" to the petition and issued certain directions to the petitioner-Bank by exercising powers vested in it under Sec. 35a read with Sec, 56 of the Banking Regulation Act and directed that the petitioner-Bank shall close down its business on and from 18-2- 1997 and shall not without prior approval in writing from the Reserve Bank of India grant or renew any loan or advance, make any investment, incur any liability including borrowal of funds and acceptance of fresh deposits or agree to or disburse any payment whether in discharge of its liabilities and obligations or otherwise, or enter into any compromise or arrangement or sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any of its properties or assets except to the extent and in the manner provided hereunder :-" (I) a sum not exceeding the total balance in savings bank or current account or any other deposit account by whatever name called, may be allowed to be withdrawn by depositor provided that wherever such depositor is having liability to the bank in any manner, i. e. , either as a borrower or surety, the amount may be adjusted first to the relevant borrowal account/s, (ii) renewal of matured term deposits in the same name and same capacity, (iii) payment of bills received for collection on or before 18/02/1997 and realised before, on or after that date, (iv) incurring any expenditure that may be required to be met by the Bank in respect of the following items : (a) salaries of employees, (b) rent, rates and taxes, (c) electricity bills, (d) printing, stationery, etc. , (e) postage and telegram etc. , (e) postage and telegram etc. , (f) legal expenses not exceeding Rs. 1,000. 00 (Rupees one thousand- only) in each case, (v) payment of premium payable to the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee corporation, (vi) incurring any expenditure on any other item insofar as it is in the opinion of the Bank necessary for carrying on the day- to-day administration of the bank provided that the total expenditure on any item in any calendar month shall not exceed the average monthly expenditure on account of that item during the period of six months preceding the date of the directive or if no expenditure has been incurred on account of that item in the past, it should not exceed a sum of Rs. 500. 00. " ( 3 ) ). Under the said letter, the Reserve Bank of India further directed that Shree sarvodaya Co-operative Bank Limited, Ahmedabad shall submit to the General manager, Urban Banks Department, Reserve Bank of India, La Gajjar Chambers, ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380 009 such statements relating to its operations as may be prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India in this behalf. The aforesaid directions were ordered to remain in force till further orders from the close of business on 18/02/1997, subject to review. ( 4 ) ). As a result of the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and also considering the audit report showing weak progress of the petitioner-Bank, and particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner- Bank could not compete with the other financial institutions as well as Banks, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, gujarat State, Gandhinagar, issued show-cause notice dated 15-5-1997 under Sec. 81 of the Act for appointment of Administrator in view of the fact that the committee of the petitioner-Bank persistently made default and was negligent in the performance of duties imposed on it by the said Act and Rules as well as the bye-laws as a result of which the progress of the petitioner-Bank was deteriorated and ultimately the depositors and the public at large were the sufferers. The petitioner bank filed its reply on 25-7-1997, Annexure "0" to the said show-cause notice. It appears that without waiting for the outcome, the petitioners have challenged the said show-cause notice by way of the present petition. ( 5 ) ). The petitioner bank filed its reply on 25-7-1997, Annexure "0" to the said show-cause notice. It appears that without waiting for the outcome, the petitioners have challenged the said show-cause notice by way of the present petition. ( 5 ) ). This Court (Coram : R. K. Abichandani, J.) on 1-10-1997 passed the following order :"notice returnable on 9-10-1997. By way of ad-interim relief it is directed that the respondent-authority will not make a final order in the matter until then before considering the petitioners application in response to show-cause notice dated 15-5-1997 that the old Board of Directors is no more in existence and the new Board of Directors has taken over. Such an application will be made by the petitioners as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on 3-10-1997. D. S. to-day is permitted. " ( 6 ) ). At the outset, Mr. Mangukiya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the order passed in other matters and more particularly the order dated 27/01/1993, passed by a Division Bench of this Court (Coram : S. Nainar Sundaram. C. J. and S. D. Dave, J.) in Letters Patent Appeal No. 492 of 1992. Mr. Mangukiya also pointed out that against the said order of the Division bench, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, also moved the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 3690 of 199 3/05/1993 the said S. L. P. was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. In view of this, it was contended that with a view to maintain parity of the orders this petition may also be admitted. ( 7 ) ). In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly in view of the fact that admittedly the petitioner-Bank is closed due to mismanagement on the part of the Directors of the Bank with the result that thousands of depositors have lost hope of getting their deposits back, I called upon Mr. Mangukiya to argue the case as if the matter is finally heard by providing all possible time and convenience to him. In fact, I have heard Mr. Mangukiya at length. I am conscious of the fact that with a view to maintain parity of the orders, the Court should ordinarily pass similar orders. Mangukiya to argue the case as if the matter is finally heard by providing all possible time and convenience to him. In fact, I have heard Mr. Mangukiya at length. I am conscious of the fact that with a view to maintain parity of the orders, the Court should ordinarily pass similar orders. Similar orders mean Rule and not to disturb the present Board of Directors, in other words, even if the Bank is closed due to their mismanagement, the Court has to ignore it and to protect them, because in other petitions Rule is issued. Therefore, with a view to avoid this situation, I heard the matter finally. ( 8 ) ). It is to be noted that L. P. A No. 492 of 1992 arose out of the order passed in Special Civil Application wherein the appellants questioned the show-cause notice issued under Sec. 81 (1) of the Act wherein similar questions which are raised in the present petition came up for consideration. The learned single Judge while issuing rule in that matter refused to grant interim relief and that order was challenged before the Division Bench. The Division Bench was of the view that if the Rule is issued in the matter, denial of interim relief would certainly affect the rights and interests of the appellants and accordingly the interim relief as prayed for was granted. In view of this, it is clear that the Division Bench has also not decided the question involved in the main petition but has granted the interim relief which was denied by the learned single Judge. In substance, this Court has not finally decided the points involved in this petition and, therefore, it is always open for this court to hear and decide the matter finally and that is being done by the present order. ( 9 ) ). The question which is required to be decided in the present case is whether the Registrar has power to issue notice under Sec, 81 (1) of the Act to the petitioners. Mr. Mangukiya contended that issuance of the show-cause notice dated 15/05/1997 in purported exercise of the powers under Sec. 81 of the Act is illegal and without authority of law in view of the specific provisions contained in Sec. 115a of the Act. Mr. Mangukiya contended that issuance of the show-cause notice dated 15/05/1997 in purported exercise of the powers under Sec. 81 of the Act is illegal and without authority of law in view of the specific provisions contained in Sec. 115a of the Act. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the decision of punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Pagra and Anr. v. The panchkula Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Civil Writ Petition No. 855 of 1990 decided on 27/07/1990. The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, after considering the provisions of Sees. 34 and 94 of the Haryana Co-operative societies Act, 1984, which are in part materia with the provisions of Sees. 81 and 115a of the Act, has taken a view that the action taken by the Deputy Registrar wielding powers of the Registrar under Sec. 34 by issuing show-cause notice to the board of Directors and the action taken on the basis of the allegations proved is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Co-operative Bank is an insured Co-operative bank and the action was required to be taken by the Reserve Bank under Sec. 94 and therefore. Sec. 34 would not apply. It was further observed that even if the deputy Registrar had mentioned that he was taking action under Sec. 34 but without being so required by the Reserve Bank of India, it would have been without jurisdiction. It was finally observed that this order will not stand in the way of the registrar to take action afresh against the delinquent Board of Directors on the same allegations, if so required by the Reserve Bank of India. Meaning thereby that the right to issue notice by the Registrar was upheld provided he obtains sanction from the Reserve Bank of India. ( 10 ) ). In order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, reference of Secs. 81 (1) and 115a (1), (2) and (3) of the Act is required to be made. They read as under :"81. ( 10 ) ). In order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, reference of Secs. 81 (1) and 115a (1), (2) and (3) of the Act is required to be made. They read as under :"81. (1) If in respect of a Committee of a Society having the Registrar as its member, the State Government and in respect of a Committee of a Society which does not have the Registrar as its member, the Registrar, is of the opinion that the committee - (a) persistently makes default or, is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws, or does anything which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members, or (b) fails to comply with any directions issued under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 160, or such directions as modified under sub-sec. (2) of that section, then subject to the rules the State Government or, as the case may be, the Registrar, may, after giving the committee an opportunity of stating its objections, if any, within fifteen days from the date of issue of notice, by order in writing, remove the Committee, and appoint - (i) a Committee, consisting of one or more members of the society in its place, or (ii) one or more administrators who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding two years as may be specified in the order, which period may, at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time so, however, that the total period does not exceed four years in the aggregate. (2) to (6) xxx xxx. 115a. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in the case of an insured co-operative Bank, - (1) an order for winding up or an order sanctioning a scheme of compromise or arrangement or of amalgamation or reconstruction (including division or reorganization) of the bank may be made only with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve bank of India; (2) an order for the winding up of the bank shall be made by the Registrar if so required by the Reserve Bank of India in the circumstances referred to in Sec. 13d of the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 1961. (3) if so required by the Reserve Bank of India in the public interest or for preventing the affairs of the bank being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or for securing the proper management of the bank, an order shall be made by the Registrar for supersession of the Committee and the appointment of the administrator in place (hereof for such period or periods, not exceeding five years in the aggregate, as may from lime to time be specified by the Reserve Bank of India and the Administrator so appointed shall after the expiry of his term of office, continue in office until the day immediately preceding the dale of the first meeting of the new Committee of such bank. " ( 11 ) ). Reading the aforesaid provisions, it appears that under Sec. 81 (1) of the act the Registrar is empowered to pass orders, if he is of the opinion that the committee persistently makes default or, is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws, or does anything which is prejudicial to the interest of the Society or its members, or fails to comply with ;any directions issued under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 160, or such directions as modified under sub-sec. (2) of that section, removing the Committee of a Society and appointing a Committee, consisting of one or more members of the Society in its place, or one or more Administrators who need not be members of the Society, to manage the affairs of the Society for a period not exceeding two years as may be specified in the order, which period may, at the discretion of the Registrar, be extended from time to time so, however, that the total period does not exceed four years in the aggregate. Similarly, Sec. 115a (1) deals with the order for winding up, reconstruction, supersession of committee etc. , of insured co-operative Bank not to be made without sanction or requisition of Reserve Bank of India. The opening words in this section are "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" means in spite of anything contained in any other provision of the Act, in case of insured co-operative Bank Sec. 115a would alone be applicable. , of insured co-operative Bank not to be made without sanction or requisition of Reserve Bank of India. The opening words in this section are "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" means in spite of anything contained in any other provision of the Act, in case of insured co-operative Bank Sec. 115a would alone be applicable. However, an order for winding up or an order sanctioning a scheme of compromise or arrangement or of amalgamation or reconstruction (including division or reorganization) of the bank may be made only with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve Bank of india and an order for the winding up of the bank shall be made by the Registrar if so required by the Reserve Bank of India in the circumstances referred to in Sec. 13d of the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, 1961. The Reserve Bank of India also, in the public interest or for preventing the affairs of the bank being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or for securing the proper management of the bank, is empowered to direct the Registrar to make an order for supersession of the Committee and the appointment of the Administrator in place thereof for such period or periods, not exceeding five years in the aggregate, as may from time to time be specified by the Reserve Bank of India and the administrator so appointed shall after the expiry of his term of office, continue in office until the day immediately preceding the date of the first meeting of the new Committee of such bank. The combined reading of both these sections makes it clear thatthe powers are vested with the Registrar to appoint Administrator, if the situation so demands. Although under Sec. 81 (1) of the Act he can independently exercise such power, however, under Sec. 115a such a power can only be exercised with the previous sanction in writing of the Reserve Bank of India. Thus, Sees. 81 and 115a should be read harmoniously as they are not contrary to each other or running in different directions but they supplement each other. Both the sections are enacted to achieve the same purpose. It is true that Sec. 115a starts with the non-obstante clause that "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" in the case of an insured co-operative bank an order for winding up, sanctioning a scheme of compromise etc. Both the sections are enacted to achieve the same purpose. It is true that Sec. 115a starts with the non-obstante clause that "notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" in the case of an insured co-operative bank an order for winding up, sanctioning a scheme of compromise etc. , shall not be made without the sanction or the requisition of the Reserve Bank of India, but that does not mean that the Registrar has no power under Sec. 81 to issue show-cause notice if he has formed an opinion in respect of the subject-matter stated in the said section. The words, "if so required" mentioned in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 115a are significant inasmuch as when the Reserve bank of India requires, it may direct the Registrar to make order for supersession of the Committee and the appointment of an Administrator in place thereof in the public interest or for preventing the affairs of the bank being conducted in a manner detrimental to the interests of the depositors or fosecuring the management of the bank, meaning thereby the Reserve Bank is exercising the power through the registrar. Thus, with a view to achieve the same purpose if the Registrar exercises powers under Sec. 81 (1) of the Act with the previous sanction or requisition of the Reserve Bank of India, under Sec. 115a of the Act, in my opinion, it cannot be contended that the exercise of such power is illegal and without authority of law. There is no dispute to the fact that in the instant case the Registrar has in fact obtained necessary prior sanction from the Reserve Bank of India by letter dated 20-2-1997. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shiv Kumar Pagras case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case the action was sought to be taken by the Deputy Registrar wielding the powers of the Registrar and without obtaining the prior sanction of the Reserve Bank of India and, therefore, the Division Bench was required to direct the Registrar to take action afresh against the delinquent Board of Directors on the same allegations, if so required by the Reserve Bank of India. ( 12 ) ). ( 12 ) ). Since the petitioner-Bank is not functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Banking Regulations Act it was brought to the notice of the Reserve bank of India being the Apex Bank which rightly gave direction to the petitioner- bank on 13/02/1997 to close down its business with effect from 1 8/02/1997. In my opinion, no hearing is required to be given to the petitioner- bank before granting sanction or requisition to the Registrar to proceed against the petitioner-Bank. This is for the simple reason that the Reserve Bank of India is not directly taking action against the petitioner but the action is being taken through the Registrar. Since the Registrar has issued notice under Sec. 81 of the Act calling upon the petitioner-Bank to show-cause as to why Administrator should not be appointed, instead of allowing the Registrar to complete the procedure by appearing before him, the petitioners have unnecessarily approached this Court even though it has filed reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Registrar. I am supported in my view by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Reserve Bank of india v. Harisidh Co-op. Bank, [ 1987 (2) GLR 1289 ] : 1987 (2) GLH 329 . The division Bench in that case has clearly ruled that Sec. 35a of the Banking Regulation act authorises the Reserve Bank to give necessary directions to secure the proper management of any banking company and that when an emergent action is required to be taken, orders passed without giving a prior opportunity of hearing the persons adversely affected, such orders are upheld. In view of this, I see no merits in the contention that petitioners are required to be heard before Reserve Bank granted sanction to the Registrar. In any case, it is not possible for me to say that the said satisfaction of the Reserve Bank is based on no material or that the said directions given were on extraneous consideration. ( 13 ) ). Thus, considering all the aspects of the matter, I am of the view that no interference is called for as there is no merit in any of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, petition fails and it is rejected. Notice discharged with no order as to costs. Ad-interim relief stands vacated. .