Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Rule. Mr. Chirag Patel waives notice of Rule for Respondent No. 4 and Mr. Shukla, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. With the consent of learned Advocates appearing for both the side, the matter is finally heard today. 2. The short facts of the case appears to be that the interim order dated 29.12.2003 was passed by the District Registrar for winding up of the petitioner Society. It appears from the record that the Society in response to the aforesaid interim order for winding up, applied for extension of time so as to enable the Society to financially strengthen its capacity and avoid final liquidation order. However, it also appears that the Society thereafter did not submit the report before the District Registrar and the District Registrar, vide order dated 07.07.2006, passed the final order of winding up on the premise that no explanation is submitted by the Society. No other reasons whatsoever are mentioned. The petitioner Society carried the matter in Appeal being Appeal No.125/06 before the Additional Registrar (Appeals) which ultimately, came to be dismissed. The petitioner also carried the matter before the State Government in revision which also came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2006 and it is under these circumstances, the present petition. 3. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, viz. Mr. Shah for the petitioner, Mr. Patel for the Respondent No. 4 & Mr. Shukla, learned AGP for the State Government and its authorities. 4. It appears that the issue which arise for consideration in the present petition is covered by the decision of this Court dated 21.02.2008 in Special Civil Application No. 15465/06 in the case of Majevadi Tel-Bita Utpadak Sahakari Mandali & Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat through the Secretary & Ors. In the said decision, this Court observed at Paras 5 to 12 as under: “5. It appears that Section 107 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which is relevant for the purpose of this petition reads as under: “107. 1. vs. The State of Gujarat through the Secretary & Ors. In the said decision, this Court observed at Paras 5 to 12 as under: “5. It appears that Section 107 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which is relevant for the purpose of this petition reads as under: “107. 1. If the Registrar,— (a) after an inquiry has been held under Section 86, or an inspection has been made under Section 87, or on the report of the auditor auditing the accounts of the society, or (b) on receipt of an application made upon a resolution carried by three-fourths of the members of a society present at a special general meeting called for the purpose, or (c) of his own motion, in the case of a society which— (i) has not commenced working, or (ii) has ceased working, or (iii) possesses shares of members’ deposits not exceeding five hundred rupees, or (iv) has ceased to comply with any conditions as to registration and management in this Act or [the rules or the bye-laws, or] [(v) has failed to comply with any directions issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 160 or such directions as modified under Sub-section (2) of that section.] is of the opinion that a society ought to be wound up, he may make an interim order directing it to be would up. 2. Where an interim order is made on a ground specified in Clause (a) or Sub-section (iv) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) a copy thereof shall be communicated, in the prescribed manner, to the society calling upon it to submit its explanation to the Registrar within a month from the date of the issue of such order. 3. The Registrar, after giving an opportunity to the society of being heard, shall make a final order, vacating or confirming the interim order.” 6. On plain reading the aforesaid Sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Act, it appears that when the interim order of liquidation is made, opportunity to submit the explanation to the Registrar within one month from the date of interim order of winding up is required to be given. The aforesaid requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Act appears to have been satisfied in the present case. However, society has not submitted any explanation. It was the contention of Mr. The aforesaid requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Act appears to have been satisfied in the present case. However, society has not submitted any explanation. It was the contention of Mr. Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the matter was being agitated before the appellate authority against the interim order of winding up, and before the conclusion of the said proceedings, the final order of winding up came to be passed and, therefore, the explanation could not be submitted. However, in his submission there are sufficient material to show that the society has made progress, and is functioning, which would not support last resort of liquidation. 7. In my view the said aspect are not required to be examined, more particularly in view of the order passed hereinafter. However, the facts remains that the opportunity for submitting explanation was given, and the same was not availed by the society. 8. It further appears that Sub-section (3) of Section 107 of the Act also provides for an opportunity of hearing to the society before passing the final order on the aspect of vacating or confirming of the interim order. The aforesaid Sub-section (3) of Section 107 of the Act is irrespective of the fact that there is explanation or not by the society. It is required for the Registrar to arrive at the satisfaction that the interim order of winding up be vacated or be confirmed, while arriving at such satisfaction, the opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the society unless the society has agreed for liquidation. It is an admitted position that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the society as per Sub-section (3) of Section 107 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Registrar is without following mandatory procedure as required under Section 107(3) of the Act. 9. The learned AGP appearing for the State Authority contended that if there is no explanation by the society or the society has not availed opportunity of submitting explanation, the District Registrar may not be required to give opportunity of hearing and, therefore, order cannot be said as illegal in the eye of law. 10. 9. The learned AGP appearing for the State Authority contended that if there is no explanation by the society or the society has not availed opportunity of submitting explanation, the District Registrar may not be required to give opportunity of hearing and, therefore, order cannot be said as illegal in the eye of law. 10. In my view when Sub-section (3) of Section 107 of the Act, independently provides for hearing and is not dependent upon the explanation by the society as conceived Sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Act. It cannot be said that if the society has not submitted any explanation, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given before passing the final order for vacating or confirming interim order. If such contention is accepted it would run counter to the scheme of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 107 of the Act. It is hardly required to be stated that liquidation is last resort and, therefore, even if there is no explanation of the society submitted, it would be required for the District Registrar to consider the matter on the basis of the material available before him, and after giving opportunity of hearing to the society, the District Registrar has to record the satisfaction for vacating or confirming interim order. Therefore, such contention of learned AGP cannot be accepted. 11. Further it appears that in the impugned order passed by the District Registrar no satisfaction whatsoever is recorded for vacating or confirming order, except mentioning that after interim order no explanation or reply submitted on behalf of the society, and, therefore, final order of liquidation. Such can also be said as mechanical exercise of the power by the District Registrar without considering the ground/circumstances germen to the exercise of the power for finalising order of liquidation. 12. The aforesaid aspect which goes to the root of the matter are not considered by the Additional Registrar in appeal as well as by the State Government in Revisional Jurisdiction. Therefore, same also can be said as without proper application of mind.” 5. Similar are the fact situation in the present inasmuch as there is no hearing given by the District Registrar nor there is any independent satisfaction recorded by the District Registrar passing final order of winding up. Therefore, same also can be said as without proper application of mind.” 5. Similar are the fact situation in the present inasmuch as there is no hearing given by the District Registrar nor there is any independent satisfaction recorded by the District Registrar passing final order of winding up. On the contrary, it appears that a printed order, by filling up of the gap, has been passed by the District Registrar, which shows that there is ex facie mechanical exercise of power. The aforesaid is also lost sight of by the appellate authority as well as by the State Government. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the District Registrar dated 07.07.2006 and its confirmation thereof by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) and further confirmation by the State Government are quashed and set aside with the direction that the matter shall stand restored to the file of the District Registrar and the District Registrar shall give the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as required under Sub-section (3) of Section 107 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, and shall be required to pass a fresh order in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the present judgment. 7. The interim order for winding up shall continue to remain in operation until the final order afresh is passed by the District Registrar. 8. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly.