Judgment ( 1. ) Shri Sharma Chairman, 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of Jt. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Indore passed u/s. 53 (1) on 22/3/2007. ( 2. ) Brief facts pertaining to this appeal are such that the sperseded board of the appellants is the erstwhile elected board of the respondent No. 2, Indore Nagrik Sahakari Bank, Indore. The elections of the superseded board took place on 20/8/2002. Thus the natural term of this board would have expired on 19/8/2007. However, the Joint Registrar, Respondent No. 1 on 14/12/2006 issued a show cause notice u/s. 53 (2) leveling as many as 14 allegations for them to show cause as to why the Board be not superseded u/s. 53 (1) for alleged irregularities. Some documents were sought by the appellants on 3.1.2007, but the appellants were directed to approach the respondent Bank for perusal of the record. Even the opportunity for submitting reply was closed on 5.2.2007. An application u/s 80 was preferred by the appellants before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bhopal where case 80-426/06-07 was registered and on 23/3/2007 the Additional Registrar, hearing the case also requisitioned the record of the Joint Registrar, However, on 22/3/2007, Joint Registrar passed the final order u/s. 53 (1) superseding the board of the appellants and appointed a committee to manage the affairs of it for one year. ( 3. ) Learned counsel Shri J.R Yadav in support of his case stated that the provision requiring the previous consultaion with the Reserve Bank of India has not been complied. The appellants.have not been provided proper opportunity by providing them the documents they have sought. The action u/s. 53 (1) and 53 (2) should precede audit, enquiry or inspection u/s. 58, 59 and 60 respectively, but the same has not been done. Appellants have not been provided an opportunity to rectify the defects required under Section 61. Every Director has not been noticed as required under the law. Inspite of transfer application u/s. 80 before the Registrar, the Joint Registrar has hastily passed the order. The compliance of 53 (7) has not been done. Supersession of the Board is a grave punishment. Appellants have not been provided an opportunity to rectify the defects required under Section 61. Every Director has not been noticed as required under the law. Inspite of transfer application u/s. 80 before the Registrar, the Joint Registrar has hastily passed the order. The compliance of 53 (7) has not been done. Supersession of the Board is a grave punishment. Therefore as per the principle laid down by the Honble High Court, it should be the last option but respondent has acted rather hastily on it and the order of the Joint Registrar does not specify the period for which the Board of appellants has been superseded. The order in that manner becomes infructuous after the expiry of one year i.e. 21/3/2008. ( 4. ) Regarding the action u/s. 58,59 and 60 to be preceding the action in section 53 (2), the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the supersession of the Board also involves disqualification of the members of the board, the authority acting on it is required to be calculative, patient and careful to honouring the provisions of law. Section 53 (1), therefore very clearly visualizes that if the Registrar is satisfied and ultimately forms an opinion on the basis of audit enquiry or inspection, the process of superseding the committee may be intiated. ( 5. ) Learned Govt. counsel Shri Anoop Sharma on the other hand, submitted that the Registrar need not form his opinion on the basis of audit, inspection or enquiry. As a matter of course he can even form this opinion on other material available with him. In the present case, the Joint Registrar has formed this provision to proceed against the appellant in light of a complainant the Inspection of the Reserve Bank and also the audit of the Bank. Since, there is not any single specific ground on which the Joint Registrar has initiated action, there was no question for him to provide it u/s. 61 for the appellant for the rectification of it. To be exact and specific of this provision we are herein quote Section 53 (1) and 53 (2) of the Act:- 53. Since, there is not any single specific ground on which the Joint Registrar has initiated action, there was no question for him to provide it u/s. 61 for the appellant for the rectification of it. To be exact and specific of this provision we are herein quote Section 53 (1) and 53 (2) of the Act:- 53. Supersession of Committee :- (1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any socieity- (a) is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by or under this Act or bye-laws of the society or by any lawful order passed by the Registrar or is unwilling to perform such duties; or (b) commits acts which are prejudical to the interest of the society or its members; or (c) violates the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under or byelaws of the society or any order passed by the Registrar. (2) No order under sub-section (1) shall be passed unless a list of allegations, documents and witnesses in support of charges leveled against it has been provided and the committee has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed order and representation, if any, made by it, is considered." ( 6. ) As a matter of fact the law simply mentions about the opinion of the Registrar to be formed in respect of the negligence of the Board in performance of the duty imposed on it under the Act or in case if it commits acts which are prejudical to the interest of the society or its members and violates the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under or byelaws of the society or any order passed by the Registrar. There is no prerequisite as such indicated in the section that the Registrar will be reaching this conclusion after the enquiry, inspection or the audit only. The audit inspection and enquiry being the routine exercise they may naturally be there and whenever these exercises are undertaken the rectification of defects as contemplated u/s. 61 may become necessary. ( 7. ) On the perusal of the record of the Joint Registrar, at the first instance, it appears on 7.12.2006, the Joint Registrar has concluded that based on the enquiry of a complainant, inspections of R.B.I. and audit of department the action u/s. 53 being necessary should be initiated. ( 7. ) On the perusal of the record of the Joint Registrar, at the first instance, it appears on 7.12.2006, the Joint Registrar has concluded that based on the enquiry of a complainant, inspections of R.B.I. and audit of department the action u/s. 53 being necessary should be initiated. It is evident that except the enquiry of a complainant received on 18.10.2006 all other details are older once. In the show cause notice issued on 14.12.2006, the Joint Registrar has after so concluding has also enclosed these documents in the show cause notice issued for the purpose. Learned counsel for the appellant placed his reliance on 1992 RN 190 wherein it has been held that where the order of supersession has been passed on the basis of the enquiry report, without providing hearing of opportunity to the board of department such order is in violation of principle of natural justice. This citation virtually is not applicable in the present case as it is neither a case u/s. 53 (13) nor it has arisen out of any enquiry which remained un-communicated to the appellant. Whenever there is an administrative enquiry, as a matter of course, the enquiry proceedings involve the opportunity to be provided to all party concerned. An enquiry as such is incomplete unless the party concerned have not been heard or provided proper opportunity. The counsel for the appellant further relied on Primary Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. Satna and another v. State ofM.P. and others, 1985 RN 269 (High Court), wherein it has been held that reasonable opportunity of showing cause implies supply of copy of enquiry report, which is mandatory and the extracts of such report in show cause notice is not sufficient. It is worthwhile to note that section 53 (2) has subsequently been amended in the light of this historic judgment and as contemplated in section 53 (2) by amendment of M.P 20 of 1999 the list of allegations, documents and witnesses in support of charges leveled has to be provided by the authority proceeding u/s. 53 (1). In the present case, the Joint Registrar in the show cause notice has enclosed as many as 20 documents contained in 42 pages as well as he has also indicated that the auditor of2005 and 2006 Shri M.L. Suliya and Smt. Radharani Joshi respectively would be the witnesses. In the present case, the Joint Registrar in the show cause notice has enclosed as many as 20 documents contained in 42 pages as well as he has also indicated that the auditor of2005 and 2006 Shri M.L. Suliya and Smt. Radharani Joshi respectively would be the witnesses. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the action u/s. 53 (1) should be preceded by the compliance of section 59,60 and 61 can therefore not be accepted. The law is very clear that once the Registrar forms an opinion for him to proceed on the basis of the grounds indicated u/s. 53 what is left for him is to comply the provisions of section 53 (2) which requires to substantiate the allegations by the list of documents and witnesses and since the same has very well been complied, this argument for the appellant does not hold any ground. ( 8. ) As regards the counsels submission that the appellants were not provided the documents they have sought vide their application dated 3.1.2007, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that these documents were very bulky in character and most of them were irrelavent and were required with the intention of delaying action in the matter. Joint Registrar has therefore directed the appellant to inspect the record available in the Bank only of which the appellants were the Directors at the given time. There is no question of these documents to have been denied to them. Thus, this point also does not have any more scope for consideration. ( 9. ) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the Directors are required to be provided the copy of the show cause notice for enabling them to submit their reply. The Joint Registrar has through his letter dated 14.12.2006 required the Manager of the Bank of ensure the services of the notice to the Directors, which is not in accordance with the requirement of the Act. The counsel for the respondent No. 2 on the other hand submitted that since the reply has been signed by all the 11 Directors, it very well makes it clear that all the Directors were in receipt of the notice. Thus, the provision was very well complied by the Joint Registrar. The counsel for the appellant placed his reliance on 1996RN386 in this respect. Thus, the provision was very well complied by the Joint Registrar. The counsel for the appellant placed his reliance on 1996RN386 in this respect. However, we do not find this citation applicable in this case as the Directors have not only appered personally before the Joint Registrar, but they have also received the notice of the Joint Registrar which has been informed by the Manager of the Bank of the Joint Registrar vide his letter dated 2.1.2007. ( 10. ) The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Joint Registrar has not considered the reply of the appellant. His order is cryptic and it simply concludes that the allegation has been proved without going into the details of the reply submitted by the appellants. The counsel in this respect placed his reliance on 1995 RN 25. Learned counsel for the respondent however contravened this contention and submitted that the order of the Joint Registrar is very exhastive. It runs into as many as 32 pages and analyzes each and every allegations right from allegation No. 1 to allegation No. 14. It also takes into consideration the reply submitted by the appellants and only thereafter reaches the conclusion that based on the facts and the documents. Since the appellant himself did not go into the merits of the allegation as he urged that it is on the technical infirmities of the order that he has approached the Tribunal, we are not going into the details of the charges. However, perusing the order of the Joint Registrar in the light of above submission of the two sides, we do not find that the Joint Registrar has not gone into the details of the allegations. The order is quite speaking one. It is exhaustive logical and he has certainly grounds for reaching the conclusion he has been driving at. ( 11. ) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since an application u/s 80 was already in consideration before the Registrar and as the record of the Joint Registrar was also requisitioned, the Joint Registrar should have desisted from passing the order. He has in this respect plaed his reliance on 1989-1MPWN 172. ( 11. ) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that since an application u/s 80 was already in consideration before the Registrar and as the record of the Joint Registrar was also requisitioned, the Joint Registrar should have desisted from passing the order. He has in this respect plaed his reliance on 1989-1MPWN 172. According to the counsel the Honble High Court has very clearly held that once the authority of the Judge is challenged on the ground of personal interest or for any other reason, "he should stay his hand. On the perusal of the record of the Joint Registrar it is evident that on 13.3.2007 appellant informed him that the case u/s. 80 for transfer is pending before the Registrar. Since, no order of the Court of Registrar has been produced before the Joint Registrar till 22/3/2007 on which the final order has been passed, there seems to be no impropriety committed by the Joint Registrar. It is also worth noting here that the appellants were buying time as is evident from the proceedings recorded by the Joint Registrar on 1/2/2007, 3/2/2007, 5/2/2007 and 9/2/2007 etc. The Joint Registrar does not seem to have committed any error in it. Since the Tribunal in appeal is already examining the matter in all other respect and aspect on this ground the impugned order is not worth assailing. ( 12. ) Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that under section 53 (7) financing Bank requires to be consulted. The appellant has however not pointed out that whether the appellant was indebted to M.R State Co- opertive Bank for the Joint Registrar to consult it in compliance of the provisions of section 53 (7). An Urban Co-operative Bank is generating its resources by way of share capital and deposit and normally does no borrow from Central Co-operative Bank or the State Co-operative Bank and as the same has not been substantiated by any details, the compliance of section 53 (7) being a limited matter, this objection also does not hold any ground. The only important mandatory requirement is the requiremen of the prior consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, which we are taking up next. ( 13. The only important mandatory requirement is the requiremen of the prior consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, which we are taking up next. ( 13. ) Learned counsel for the appellant placing his reliance on High Court decision reported in 1982 JLJ 15 , Raghunath v. State of M.P. and others (D.B.) submitted that the Joint Registrar could only acquire his jurisdiction after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. This provision is mandatory. According to him as their lordship have observed in this order consultation did not amount by merely seeking the copy of the show cause notice for information, relevant materials should also be supplied for tendering their proper advise. The counsel pointed out that although the show cause notice issued by the Joint Registrar has been endorsed to the RBI, but it does not indicate that the enclosurer were attached to it as they have been shown to have been sent enclosed to the petitioners. According to Shri Yadav thus the RBI was not supplied full information therefore this mandatory provision has not been complied in accordance with the principle well laid down by Honble High Court (DB). ( 14. ) Learned counsel Shri Patidar appearing for the respondent No.2 placed his reliance on the Tribunals order passed in FA No. 173/2006, Board of Directors Shramik Nagrik Sahakari Bank Mydt. Indore and others v. K.L. Sharma and others passed on 14.7.2009, in which the Tribunal has held that once the Reserve Bank was informed and as the advice from it was not received in the stipulated time that amounted to be consultation with the Reserve Bank and there could be no violation of this provision. As a matter of fact this law point has been further analyzed and substantiated by an important decision of Honble High Court (DB) as reported in 1986 JLJ 656 = 1986 MPLJ 567, Sitaram v. Registrar Co-operative Societies and another wherein it has been held that the Registrar should also provide a copy of the reply received from the Board of Directors in respect of the allegations leveled against them in the show cause notice. The relevant part of this judgment being quite important in the present case it is being reproduced below for proper assessment of the present situation :- "The second submission made by the learned counsel is on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of the proviso to section 53 (1) of the Act which provides that in case of a Co-operative Bank, the order of supersession shall not be passed without previous consultation with the Reserve Bank. In the instant case, only a copy of show cause notice dated 20.2.84, was forwarded to the Reserve Bank, but the petitioners reply to the said notice alongwith other relevant material was not forwarded to the Reserve Bank. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that consulation with the Reserve Bank previous to the order of supersession means an effective and meaningful consultation which is possible only when the entire relevant material of the case including the petitioners reply showing cause why the committee should not superseded is placed before the Reserve Bank. Otherwise the requirement of consultation would be reduced to a mere empty formality if mere copy of the show cause notice is sent to the Reserve Bank without any further material relevant for consideration, as has been done in the instant case. This contention of the learned counsel has force and must be upheld. It is true that no proper consulation is possible in any case unless all relevant material is placed for application of mind to form an opinion. The requirement of consultation certainly is not confined to the formal approval of show cause notice by the Reserve Bank which has to be consultated on the question of supersession prior to passing of the order in that regard by the Registrar. The impugned order of supersession (Annexure-J) is, therefore, not sustainable, having been based without compliance, with the mandatory." ( 15. ) Thus, the Honble High Court clearly held that it is not just the notice but also reply received from the Board of Directors necessary for RBI to clearly analyze the whole situation independently and then provide its considered opinion. ( 16. ) The crux of the matter implies that the consulation with the RBI as provided in the law has to be a transparent, objective and well intentioned exercise. It cannot be a game of hide and seek as such. ( 16. ) The crux of the matter implies that the consulation with the RBI as provided in the law has to be a transparent, objective and well intentioned exercise. It cannot be a game of hide and seek as such. After all the RBI provides a banking licence to a Bank for it to undertake the Banking exercise otherwise it is only a society registered by the Registrar. The Reserve Bank of India thus has a definite control and supervisory powers to convey effective advice to the Registrar. It is also evident from the fact that the third proviso of section 53 (1) empowers Reserve Bank of India to require the Registrar to supersede a Bank for five years once the Reserve Bank comes to conclusion that the Bank is functioning which is detrimental to the interest of the depositor or it has become necessary for securing proper management of it. It is very clear in the present case that the joint Registrar has endorsed the copy of the show cause notice dated 14.12.2006 to the Reserve Bank of India, but has not indicated whether any documents are being enclosed for the sake of the verification of the allegation leveled. Although the learned counsel for the Govt. Shri Anoop Sharma submitted that once the documents have been shown to have been enclosed to the appellants it should also be inferred that they were sent to the RBI also. It could further be argued from his side that since the matter lay between the Joint Registrar and RBI, the RBI could well seek additional information when found necessary. However, the pertinent question in this context is only this that since the Joint Registrar was bound to seek consultation from the RBI, it was basically his responsibility to have ensured the full compliance of the mandatory requirement by first enclosing all the documents which were provided to the appellants and also as held by their Lordship in Sitaram v. Registrar Co-operative Societies and another (supra) send the reply submitted by the petitioner for the RBI to enabiling them to form an independent and unbiased opinion about the supersession of the appellants Board. ( 17. ) As a matter of fact that Joint Registrar has not complied this mandatory requirement which has been so clearly laid down and explained at length by Honble High Court in above two judgments. ( 17. ) As a matter of fact that Joint Registrar has not complied this mandatory requirement which has been so clearly laid down and explained at length by Honble High Court in above two judgments. We find that the order of the Joint Registrar is manifestly faulty on the above technical count. As regards our order passed in FA No. 173/06 since the two judgments were not brought to our notice at that time, we only find it now proper to deviate from our above findings and well rely on the judgment of Honble High Court. It may further be stated as brought out in the order of FA No. 173/06, that action was initiated at the instance of RBI only. Therefore the consultation with RBI could not have been held to have been incomplete and improper. ( 18. ) In the light of the above discussion although all other arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants do not hold grounds, but on the ground that the consultation with the Reserve Bank of India as required under the law was not properly complied, the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar is erroneous on this technical ground. It can therefore not be sustained for this flaw in it. Therefore, we quash the impugned order passed u/s. 53 (1) on 22/3/2007 by the Jt. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Indore. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed.