JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 388 of 1986 and 4872 of 1989 as the questions of fact and law involved therein are identical in nature. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 388 of 1986. 2. Petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to quash order dated June 27, 1985 (Annexure P-8) and order dated January 4, 1986 (Annexure P-9). 3. Petitioner No. 1 is a Cooperative Society running in the name of Chandigarh Mahila Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter called "the Cooperative Bank"). The promoter members of the Cooperative Bank, after enrolling 250 members, issued a share capital of Rs. 28,350/-. Petitioner-Cooperative Bank consists of women members. The membership of the Cooperative Bank in February 1985 rose to 449 with a share capital of Rs. 65,400/-. 4. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies exercising the powers of Registrar Cooperative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) passed an order dated February 8, 1985 (Annexure P-3) winding up the Cooperative Bank. Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent NO. 3) was appointed as the Liquidator. 5. Appeal against order dated February 8, 1985 (Annexure P-3) was filed before the Chief Commissioner, Union Territory, Chandigarh. The Chief Commissioner, vide his order dated April 4, 1985 (Annexure P-4) accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order of winding up of the Cooperative Bank and remanded the case back to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) on the case being remanded back, ordered an enquiry on the working and financial condition of the Cooperative Bank. Show cause notice dated June 5, 1985 (Annexure P-6) was issued to the petitioners-Cooperative Bank. After the enquiry was held and reply of the Show Cause Notice received, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) passed an order dated June 27, 1985 (Annexure P-8) for winding up the Cooperative Bank. Against this order, appeal was filed before the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1), as there was no Chief Commissioner appointed at that time. Administrator upheld the order dated June 27, 1985 (Annexure P-8) passed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No. 2). 6. Notice of motion was issued. 7. Written statement was filed. 8. Against this order, appeal was filed before the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1), as there was no Chief Commissioner appointed at that time. Administrator upheld the order dated June 27, 1985 (Annexure P-8) passed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No. 2). 6. Notice of motion was issued. 7. Written statement was filed. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that order dated January 4, 1986 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh was patently illegal. Petitioner-Cooperative Bank had followed the procedure, as laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. The observations of the learned Administrator that the Cooperative Bank should be wound up, are arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the statutory provisions. The Cooperative Bank, after provisional registration and after fulfilling all the conditions and verification of antecedents of the promoters members, was allowed to work as a Credit Society, for about six months without any objection from the Reserve Bank of India. Winding up orders passed by the Registrar were only to scuttle the progress of Cooperative Bank. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory has stated that the Cooperative Bank did not take the permission from the Reserve Bank of India. This was mandatory under the Banking Regulation Rules 1949, to run the Cooperative Bank. The Cooperative Bank was being run only to fleece money from the individual/members/share holders and ultimately, the share holders would have been agitated if the respondents did not step in at the right time. No Cooperative Bank/Society could conduct any business without taking the permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 provides for Regulation of Banking business from May 1, 1982. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Act 1981, came into force known as NABARD. Since the registration and licence for the Cooperative Bank is compulsory with the Reserve Bank of India, the petitioners could not have functioned. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for Union of India and perused impugned order dated January 4, 1986 (Annexure P-9). 11. I agree with the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the Union Territory. 12. Petitioner-Cooperative Bank was registered provisionally on September 14, 1984. No confirmation had been made and the petitioners also could not presume that registration will be confirmed. 11. I agree with the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the Union Territory. 12. Petitioner-Cooperative Bank was registered provisionally on September 14, 1984. No confirmation had been made and the petitioners also could not presume that registration will be confirmed. Respondent No. 2 was well within his right to step in and take legal action if the requirements of law are not fulfilled. Directions of the Reserve Bank of India were binding on the Cooperative Bank, but they were violated. Regular enquiry was held and it was after this enquiry that the irregularities in the functioning of the Cooperative Bank were noticed. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated January 4, 1986 passed by Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh. With the above observations, both these writ petitions bearing Nos. 388 of 1986 and 4872 of 1989 are dismissed. Petition dismissed.