JUDGMENT 1. The Court has heard this petition on 11.02.2009. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the petition was dismissed mainly for the reasons that the petitioner No.1 Society is virtually a defunct society and no activity worth its name are carried out by the petitioner Society and also for the reason that the petitioner Society is having an alternative remedy and can challenge the impugned order under Section 109 of the Act. For paucity of time, the Court has pronounced the operative order on 11.02.2009 and observed that the arguments and submissions of the Counsels and the Court's finding thereon with reasons be given later on . The reasons for dismissal of the petition are as under :- 2. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the District Registrar, Sabarkantha, Annexure T to this petition as well as the order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar in Appeal No.27 of 2009 dated 27.01.2009 and the order of non-grant of interim relief by the respondent No.3 authority in Revision Application No.23 of 2009 dated 06.02.2009. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 Society is duly registered Co-operative Society under the provisions of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act having Registration No. Se.20470 dated 11.11.1983. The petitioner No.1 is a Co-operative Marketing Society as defined under the Agriculture Produce Market Committee Act ('APMC Act' for short) and is holding general license of the Marketing Co-operative Society constituency of APMC, Bayad. The petitioner No.1 Society has paid the fees for the year 2008 2009 to APMC, Bayad. The petitioner No.2 is one of the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society. The petitioner No.2 is contesting election from the Co-operative Purchase Sales Society voter's constituency and expects to be successful in the said election. The petitioner No.2 has filed his nomination papers which have been accepted and he has been allotted election symbol of cup and saucer. The name of the petitioner No.2 appears at Sr. No.2 of the public notice dated 31.01.2009 issued by the Election Officer, APMC, Bayad and District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himatnagar thereby declaring the finally contesting candidates in the Co-operative Sales and Purchase Society constituency. The name of the petitioner No.2 appears at Sr. No.2 of the public notice dated 31.01.2009 issued by the Election Officer, APMC, Bayad and District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himatnagar thereby declaring the finally contesting candidates in the Co-operative Sales and Purchase Society constituency. After the commencement of the election process, the respondent No.5 i.e. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sabarkantha issued a show-cause notice dated 03.12.2008 making allegations against the petitioner No.1 Society and taking it into liquidation by appointing Liquidator in exercise of the powers under Section 107 (1) (a) (c) (ii) of the Act. The petitioner No.1 Society filed its reply dated 26.12.2008 to the said show-cause notice to the respondent No.5 and pointed out that the said action was bad in law and it was taken with a view to prevent the petitioner No.2 from contesting the election whose name has already been published in the final voter's list published on 24.11.2008. Notwithstanding the said reply, respondent No.5 issued an interim order dated 23.01.2009 under the provisions of Section 107 (A) (c) (ii) of the Act for winding up of the petitioner No.1 Society and for appointment of Liquidator under the provisions of Section 108 of the Act. This order was issued after the nomination of the petitioner No.2 was accepted and all the members of the petitioner No.1 Society were included in the final voter's list published on 27.12.2008. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the District Registrar, the petitioner No.1 Society challenged the said order in appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. In the said appeal, Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 27.01.2009 whereby it was directed that the petitioner No.1 Society should make a written / oral submission before the respondent No.5 till 11.02.2009 against the order of liquidation. The respondent No.5, after considering the said submission would take final decision as per Rules or merits, upto 11.02.2009 and in the meantime, status-quo was to be maintained as on 27.01.2009 and the final decision on the interim winding up order would be taken. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 27.01.2009, the petitioner No.1 Society approached the revisional authority by filing Revision Application No.23 of 2009 before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Co-operation Division, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Gandhinagar. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 27.01.2009, the petitioner No.1 Society approached the revisional authority by filing Revision Application No.23 of 2009 before the Deputy Secretary (Appeals), Co-operation Division, Agriculture and Co-operation Department, Gandhinagar. Though there was urgency in the matter, without taking any decision on the revision application, the date of hearing of the same has been fixed on 16.02.2009. It was also the petitioner's grievance that the respondent No.5 communicated to the petitioner No.1 and all its members of the Managing Committee, vide his communication dated 29/31.01.2009 that as per the order issued by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) in Appeal No.27 of 2009, the petitioner No.1 Society was called upon to remain present on 07.02.2009 and to make submission in connection with the interim winding up order. The respondent No.5 thereafter issued another communication dated 05.02.2009 stating therein that due to unavoidable circumstances, earlier date of hearing which was fixed on 07.02.2009 was thereafter rescheduled on 10.02.2009. By virtue of this change in the hearing date, the petitioners apprehended and believed that an order would be passed on 10.02.2009 itself so as to prevent it from being challenged by the petitioner and with a view to see that on the strength of the order, final winding up order of the petitioner No.1 Society might be passed and thereby the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society would be prevented from participating in the election of the APMC, Bayad though the nomination form of the petitioner No.2 was validly accepted and his name appeared in the list of validly finally contesting candidates. In view of this apprehension, the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No.1985 of 2009 before this Court on 09.02.2009. This Court vide its order dated 10.02.2009 dismissed the said petition. It was also the case of the petitioners that despite request made by the petitioners before the District Registrar to postpone the hearing as the petitioners have already approached this Court, the respondent No.5 has taken up hearing on 10.02.2009 and an order was passed on the same day winding up the petitioner No.1 Society and appointing the Co-operation Officer (Liquidation) as the Liquidation Officer with a further direction to complete the process of liquidation within a period of three years from the date of the order. 6. 6. It is this order which is under challenge in the present Special Civil Application. 7. Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is based on the grounds which are not germane to the exercise of powers and it was passed only with a view to see that the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society are in any way prevented from exercising their franchise and the petitioner No.2 is prevented from contesting the election of the APMC, Bayad. The District Registrar was fully aware about pendency of the appeal No.27 of 2000 before the Registrar of Appeals as well as the Revision Application No.23 of 2009 before the Secretary and that the hearing was fixed on 16.02.2009. Despite the fact that the District Registrar is an authority subordinate to both the appellate as well as the revisional authority, without waiting for the outcome of the said revision application, proceeded further and passed the impugned order with a malafide intention and an ulterior motive. 8. Mr. Raval has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.5 is ex-facie illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 & 19 (1) (3) of the Constitution of India as well as ultra vires the provisions of Sections 107 & 108 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. He has further submitted that the impugned order is passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the same is arbitrary, violative of Article 119 of the Constitution of India and hence deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Raval has further submitted that the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and though repeatedly prayed for, reasonable opportunity of hearing and even short adjournment has not been granted by the respondent No.5, though sufficient grounds in support of the prayer for short adjournment were advanced. Non-grant of proper opportunity of hearing has caused serious prejudice and harm to the petitioners in as much as the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner No.1 Society as well as the petitioner No.2 were busy in campaign work of the election of APMC and, therefore, sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing was required to be given for rendering an explanation and hence, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. 10. Mr. 10. Mr. Raval has further submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is a non-reasoned and cryptic order. Except stating that on the grounds which are stated while rendering the interim order which order is a subject matter of both proceedings before the appellate authority as well as revisional authority, the District Registrar has held that for the said reasons, the petitioner No.1 society is not working in accordance with the Act, Rules and Bye-laws and the objects and no further arguments are raised and, therefore, final order of winding up has been passed. 11. Mr. Raval has further submitted that as per the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Apexa Co. Op. Bank Limited V/s. District Registrar and others, 1993 (2) GLH 861 , winding up of a Society amounts to its Civil death and winding up should be considered as a last resort and should be resorted to only in the event when no other option is available to the authorities. It is further held that an interim order under Section 107 is not a temporary order, in the sense of an ex-parte ad-interim order made to meet an urgent situation liable to be vacated or confirmed by a final order that may be passed at the termination of the proceeding after a full fledged hearing, it cannot be regarded as a temporary or provisional order having a limited play. Further more, that the power of winding up is vested in high authority is not only statutorily but factually unsound that the power can and has in fact trickled down to Assistant District Registrar who by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a high authority or highly placed officer. It is further held that once the power is shown to have been vested not in a high authority but in lower rungs of administration, the immunity which is ordinarily afforded to discretionary orders made by highly placed officials cannot be invoked. Further more, it has been held that by mere exercise of powers therefore cannot be made by making an order of winding up. It has also been held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and unreasonableness in legislative and executive action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Further more, it has been held that by mere exercise of powers therefore cannot be made by making an order of winding up. It has also been held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness and unreasonableness in legislative and executive action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is further held that mere existence of any one or more of the conditions laid down in Clauses (a) (b) and (c) is not by itself sufficient to warrant the making of an interim order of winding up, for the law requires the competent authority to form an opinion that the society ought to be wound up, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The opinion must be formed reasonably and bonafide on the proof of the existence of the objective circumstances, one or more, set out in the three clauses which are conditions precedent for the formation of the opinion. It is further held that without application of mind, or on the existence of circumstances on the basis of which no rational human being could have formed the opinion, or it rests on grounds which are extraneous and not germane or is arrived at mala fide, the opinion could not be said to have been formed as required by the statute and it would be open to the judicial scrutiny even in a collateral proceeding such as a writ petition, apart from the departmental hierarchical forum. It is further held that while passing the order under Section 107, the Registrar should examine the possibilities of resorting to less drastic actions under the Act before passing such order. It is held that after considering the provisions of Section 84, 85, 86, 87 & 92, the competent authority will have to take into account the alternative course provided under Section 92 and to consider whether winding up must be ordered by an interim order, having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case without recourse to such course and winding up is the process whereby the life of the society is ended and such a step would ordinarily be taken only if the alternatives provided by the various other provisions of the statute are found to be inadequate to infuse healthy life in an erring or defaulting society. Mr. Mr. Raval has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is contrary to settled legal position and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. Mr. Raval has further submitted that the revisional authority entertained the revision application against the order passed by the Additional Registrar (Appeals) and fixed the hearing on 16.02.2009. Despite this, he has not taken any decision on the stay application and thus abdicates the duties and functions of quasi judicial authority and, therefore, the said action is in violation of the principles of law that it was open to the revisional / appellate authority to take up for hearing the stay application and if not convinced, to pass a short reasoned order to reject the same and/or to grant stay and to take up the proceedings for early hearing. By not following such a course of action and not deciding the stay application, the revision application has been rendered infructuous. 13. Mr. Raval has further submitted that the appellate authority has also erred in passing the impugned order since the appeal is entertained on prima facie finding that the order to appoint the Liquidator is contrary to law. Therefore, such an order has been stayed by directing to maintain status-quo. However, simultaneously at the same time, the proceedings for final order of liquidation were permitted to go on. Thus, there is contradiction in terms and, therefore, the order of the appellate authority is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. Mr. Raval further submitted that all the three authorities have erred in law in not appreciating that liquidation of a Society leads to its civil death and is very harsh step so as to wipe out their existence itself of a co-operative Society. Such an extreme step can only be resorted as a last measure. None of the allegations based on which liquidation proceedings are initiated are so serious that it would warrant winding up of the Society. He has, therefore, submitted that none of the ingredients of Section 107 are present or existing so as to permit winding up of the Society. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner No.1 Society was making profit though of a very meager amount. He has, therefore, submitted that none of the ingredients of Section 107 are present or existing so as to permit winding up of the Society. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner No.1 Society was making profit though of a very meager amount. Hence, a man of reasonable prudence can never come to the conclusion that the petitioner No.1 Society is not functioning in furtherance of the object for which it is established and registered. The District Registrar has completely failed to consider the written reply together with the documentary evidences on record to show that on the date on which he proceeded to decide about the winding up proceedings and passing order of appointment of interim Liquidator, the objections ought to have been removed or dealt with. On passing of the said order, the principle grounds on which the order was rendered became non-existent. He has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Registrar on 10.02.2009 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 15. Mr. C.B. Upadhyaya, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal under Section 109 of the Act and hence, the Court should not entertain this petition. Even otherwise, the impugned order was passed by the District Registrar after complying with all the requirements which are laid down under Section 107 of the Act. Before passing the impugned order, the District Registrar has issued the show-cause notice setting out therein the grounds on which the petitioner No.1 Society may be required to be wound up. There are in all six grounds. The show-cause notice was issued on 3.12.2008 and hearing was fixed on 15.12.2008. The petitioner No.1 Society has given its reply on 26.12.2008 and after considering the reply given by the petitioner, the District Registrar has passed an interim order on 23.01.2009 under Section 107 (1) (a) and (c) (ii) and appointed the Liquidation Officer. The petitioner No.1 Society was granted month's time to give its further explanation so that final order can be passed after considering the said explanation. The grounds set out in the show-cause notice are that the petitioner No.1 Society has not removed the defects pointed out in the Audit memo for the year ended on 31.03.2005. The petitioner No.1 Society was granted month's time to give its further explanation so that final order can be passed after considering the said explanation. The grounds set out in the show-cause notice are that the petitioner No.1 Society has not removed the defects pointed out in the Audit memo for the year ended on 31.03.2005. The petitioner No.1 Society has also not maintained the Membership register, share register etc. The Society has made the profit of Rs.108/- only for the year ended on 31.03.2007 which is very negligible and the Society has not made any satisfactory progress for making any more profit. The Society has only 11 members and no efforts are made for increasing the strength of the membership of the Society. The meeting of the Managing Committee is required to be called for in every month as per the Bye-laws. Despite this fact, only four meetings were held between the period from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2007. The Society was issued communications dated 07.04.2007, 16.04.2007, 23.05.2007, 21.11.2007, 03.10.2008 and 1.11.2008 calling for the information and asking the concerned office bearers to remain present. However, neither any information was provided nor any office bearer remained present. The District Registrar, therefore, was of the view that the society is a defunct society and the members of the Managing Committee had no interest to continue the society. 16. He has further submitted that the reply given by the Society was very vague and evasive and no information was provided even in the said reply. The District Registrar, therefore, passed a detailed speaking and reasoned order on 23.1.2009. The District Registrar has observed in his interim order that the defects were to be removed within 90 days from the date of the Audit report. However, the society has removed the defects only after the receipt of the notice dated 03.12.2008. He has further observed in the order that no documentary evidence was produced by the society in support of the contentions raised in the reply to the show-cause notice. The alleged purchases made by the Society were not reflected in the stock register nor in the sale register. Even no evidence was produced with regard to the cess to be paid on the purchases. The District Registrar was, therefore, of the view that the alleged purchases were shown only on the basis of certain receipts. 17. The alleged purchases made by the Society were not reflected in the stock register nor in the sale register. Even no evidence was produced with regard to the cess to be paid on the purchases. The District Registrar was, therefore, of the view that the alleged purchases were shown only on the basis of certain receipts. 17. This interim order was challenged before the Additional Registrar who has admitted the appeal and passed an order of status-quo. Since the matter could not be taken up by the Additional Registrar, the petitioner Society has filed revision application No.23 of 2009 before the Deputy Secretary and the Deputy Secretary has fixed the matter on 16.02.2009. These orders were challenged before this Court in Special Civil Application No.1095 of 2009 and this Court vide its order dated 10.02.2009 has dismissed the said petition observing that the allegations made by the petitioner cannot be gone into by the Court at this stage especially when the petitioner has already availed of the remedies available under the law and the authorities are seized with the matters. Simply because a particular date is given or it is changed because of unavoidable circumstances it cannot be alleged that the hearing is postponed only because of certain political considerations. All these issues which are raised by the petitioner in the present petition can as well be raised before the authority and if these submissions are not properly considered by the authority in their true perspective, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the decision before the appropriate forum. The Court, therefore, observed that since, the proceedings are pending before the authorities below this Court did not want to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, the said petition was summarily dismissed. 18. Since the District Registrar has kept the hearing of the matter on 10.02.2009 and there was no order from this Court either staying the said proceedings or extending the time, the District Registrar has passed the final order on 10.02.2009. After the interim order is passed by the District Registrar, no further reply was filed neither any further material was produced by the petitioner before the District Registrar. After the interim order is passed by the District Registrar, no further reply was filed neither any further material was produced by the petitioner before the District Registrar. The District Registrar has also observed that since the Additional Registrar (Appeal) has directed him to complete the hearing and take decision on merits on or before 11.02.2009, he had no other alternative but to pass the order on 10.02.2009. The District Registrar has further observed that despite sufficient opportunity being given to the petitioner society, no further submissions were made and hence, he has passed the final order of liquidation of the petitioner No.1 society directing the Liquidation Officer to complete the liquidation proceedings of the Society within three years. 19. Based on the above factual background, Mr. Upadhyaya has strongly urged that since the interim order is not disturbed by the authorities below as well as by this Court and after the interim order, no further materials or informations were supplied by the petitioner Society and hence, the District Registrar has rightly passed the order under Section 107 (3) of the Act whereby the interim order passed by him on 23.01.2009 was confirmed. 20. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having considered their rival submissions as well as the order passed by the District Registrar, interim as well as final, the Court is of the view that since the petitioner No.1 Society is virtually a defunct society, no useful purpose would be served to continue the said Society merely for the name sake. The impugned order was passed by the District Registrar under Section 107 (1) (a) and (c) (ii). Sub-section (1) of Section 107 lays down principles under which a Co-operative Society may be wound up. Under this sub-Section, the Registrar has power to order winding up of a Society when on the basis of a report of the Auditor auditing the accounts of the Society, the Registrar is of the opinion that the Society ought to be wound up. It was revealed that the defects pointed out therein were not removed within 90 days. The said defects were removed only after issuance of the show-cause notice by the Registrar. It was revealed that the defects pointed out therein were not removed within 90 days. The said defects were removed only after issuance of the show-cause notice by the Registrar. The interim order was also passed on the basis of the provisions contained in Section 107 (1) (c) (ii) which says that the Registrar has a power to order winding up of a Society on the basis of his own motion, in the case of a Society which has ceased working. The details found on record clearly indicate that the petitioner Society has not been carrying out any activities. There are no transactions of sale and purchases. The profit is very negligible. Meetings were not held. Communications issued were not complied with. All these factors pointed out by the Registrar clearly indicate that the Society has ceased its working and hence, the Registrar was justified in passing the interim order. 21. This Court's jurisdiction in interfering with the order passed by the statutory authority is limited only in the case where certain material irregularities and illegalities have been committed or that the order sought to be challenged is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice or that the pre-requisites of the statutory provisions have not been complied with. If none of these circumstances is in existence and the order is passed after proper appreciation of facts and evidence, the Court is very slow in interfering with such order. The provisions contained in Section 107 in its true form and spirit are complied with. A show-cause notice was issued giving ample time to file reply. The reply filed was duly considered by the District Registrar and after analyzing the said reply, a reasoned and speaking order was passed by the District Registrar. Even after passing the impugned order, time was granted and when directions were issued by the Additional Registrar to complete the proceedings on or before 11.02.2009, the impugned order is passed by the District Registrar on 10.02.2009. Thus, it cannot be said that there is violation of any statutory provision or principles of natural justice is not observed by the District Registrar while passing the impugned order. Thus, it cannot be said that there is violation of any statutory provision or principles of natural justice is not observed by the District Registrar while passing the impugned order. As far as the factual finding is concerned, the same is based on proper appreciation of the evidence produced on record and finding arrived at or the conclusion drawn by the District Registrar cannot be said to be either unreasonable or perverse. The Court, therefore, does not see any merits in the present petition and hence, the petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner Society is a defunct Society and also on the ground that though an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, the same was not availed of and after approaching this Court directly, the petitioner Society has invited the order of this Court on merits. 22. The decision of this Court in the case of Apexa Co. Op. Bank Limited (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner, does not render much assistance to the case of the petitioner. Every decision is based on its own facts. The Court has to see that a ratio of a particular judgment applies to the facts of the case on hands. Some distinction or slightly distinguished facts would change the entire complexion of the matter and the Court may arrive at a different conclusion. There cannot be any dispute about the legal propositions laid down in the said decision. However, once the Court having come to the conclusion that the petitioner Society is virtually a defunct society and its existence is only on paper and still the Court is to hold that liquidation of the Society is a last resort. This Court in its humble opinion holds that when any particular Society is already defunct or dead and an attempt is sought to be made to keep it alive for some collateral purposes and not for the purposes for which it was established, provisions of Section 107 of the Act can and should certainly be invoked for its formal declaration of death i.e. liquidation, of course, after due observance of all legal formalities and proper as well as effective compliance with all statutory provisions. 23. In the result, the petition is dismissed.