ORDER 1. Challenging the orders Annexure P-3 dated 27.8.2003 passed by the respondents cancelling the registration of the petitioner-society so also declaring the immovable and movable assets of the society to be the property of the State Government, petitioner has filed this petition. 2. Petitioner claims to be a society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Adhiniyam of 1973"). The society is carrying out certain social and religious activities and is managing the Mandir Shri Ladli Lalji MaharaJ, belonging to Agrawal Jaipuria Samaj. It is stated that petitioner-society has various movable and immovable property situated in Kasera Gali (Oli) Sarafa Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior. Grievance of the petitioner are that registration of the petitioner is cancelled and action is taken under section 36 (2) of the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 for taking over assets of the society without issuing notice to the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner and without granting any opportunity to give their say in the matter. Inter alia contending that the entire action taken is in violation to the principles of natural justice, is unsustainable, petitioner challenges the order impugned~ That apart inviting my attention to the provision of sub-section (3) of section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 Shri Arun Dudawat, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the State Government is entitled to take over assets of the society only to the extent of assistance, grant-in-aid and donation received by the society from the State Government or the Central Government. In the present case as the society is not receiving any grant-in-aid or donation from the State Government or the Central Government the provision of section 36 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 canot be enforced in the case of the petitioner-society. Specific averments in this regard is made by the petitioner in para 5.4 of the petition. 3. On notice being issued respondents have filed return and by bringing on record the notice issued vide Annexure R -1 dated 1.11.2002 and Annexure R-2 dated 12.5.2003 it is stated that notices have been issued to the petitioner before taking action and therefore, contention of the petitioner that they have not been issued with notice is said to be unsustainable. On notice being issued respondents have filed return and by bringing on record the notice issued vide Annexure R -1 dated 1.11.2002 and Annexure R-2 dated 12.5.2003 it is stated that notices have been issued to the petitioner before taking action and therefore, contention of the petitioner that they have not been issued with notice is said to be unsustainable. As far as receiving of the grant-in-aid is concerned, return is filed and replied to said para 5.4 it is only stated that said para does not require any reply as it is narration of fact. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is clear that the action taken in the matter and impugned orders have been passed illegally without following the statutory provision and is therefore unsustainable. Section 34 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 contemplates a notice to be served on the society before taking any action for dissolution of the society or dealing with the matter in any manner whatsoever. It is the specific case of the petitioner, in the petition that no notice is issued or served, respondents have filed Annexure R -1 dated 1.11.2002 this is not a notice contemplated under section 34 or section 36, it is only a notice asking the petitioner to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted under sections 38 and 39 of the Adhiniyam for non compliance of sections 27 and 28 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. That being so petitioner is right in contending that Annexure R-1 is not a notice pertaining to take action under sections 34 and 36 of the Adhiniyam. 5. As far as the Annexure R-2 is concerned, it is dated 12.2.2003 and even though it is a notice for cancellation of registration and for taking over of the assets of the society but service of this notice is not established. No acknowledgement or proof with regard to service of this notice is filed by the respondents. Once it is a specific case of the petitioner that the notice was neither issued nor served then it was incumbent upon the respondents to show that Annexure R-2 notice was duly issued served on the petitioner. No acknowledgement or proof with regard to service of this notice is filed by the respondents. Once it is a specific case of the petitioner that the notice was neither issued nor served then it was incumbent upon the respondents to show that Annexure R-2 notice was duly issued served on the petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that notice Annexure R-2 dated 12.5.2003 is served on the petitioner, that being so this Court is constrained to uphold the contention of the petitioner that notice is not properly served on the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner order is passed in violation of the principle of natural justice is correct and action taken against the petitioner is unsustainable. 6. As far as the taking over assets of the petitioner-society is concerned. In para 5.4 of the petition, petitioner has made a specific statement to the effect that it does not get any assistance, grant-in-aid or donation either from the State Government, Central Government or any other staturory authority. In reply to this respondents have merely stated that this fact does not require any reply, that being so there is some force in the contention advanced by Shri Arun Dudawat, learned counsel for petitioner. However, the action initiated by the respondents found to be unsustainable as it is taken in violation of principle of natural justice, it is not necessary now in this petition to go into the said question. 7. Accordingly order impugned Annexure P-3 dated 27.8.2003 is quashed, petition stands allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid.