Judgment S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. Rule. Mr. Prakash Jani, learned Government Pleaded with Ms. Jhaveri, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondents. By consent, rule is fixed forthwith. 3. The petitioners, a Co-operative Society classified as a primary level Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society and Chairman and Member respectively have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the show cause notice dated 17.1.2011 issued by District Registrar, Co-operative Society, Amreli – the Respondent No. 2 herein in exercise of powers under Section 81(A) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), calling upon the Society to show cause as to why the Managing Committee, who has been opined to be responsible for incurring continues losses for three years and other misconduct, shall not be superseded. 4. This Court (Coram: M.D. Shah, J.) vide order dated 7.2.2011 issued notice and granted ad-interim relief in terms of Para 9(c), which was time and again extended and today the matter was heard finally at the request of learned advocates for the parties. 5. Facts in brief leading to filing this petition deserve to be set out as under. 6. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative society classified as a primary level Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society and Petitioner No. 2 is the Chairman and member of said Society. The society is said to have been incorporated in the year 1950. The society has around 803 members, who are agriculturists of village Ambardi and society is in business of dispensing agricultural credit to its members. The society’s accounts are audited regularly and it is stated in the memo of petition that society has not defaulted in repaying of the loan to the District Central Bank. The existing Managing Committee came into charge of the affairs of the society from 26.6.2010. The society’s accounts are audited regularly and it is stated in the memo of petition that society has not defaulted in repaying of the loan to the District Central Bank. The existing Managing Committee came into charge of the affairs of the society from 26.6.2010. There is allegations made in Paras 3.4 and 3.5 that on account of extraneous consideration mentioned thereunder, the society was subjected to the show cause notice impugned in this petition on the premise that the competent authority formed an opinion that the Managing Committee of the society did not act in accordance with provisions of the Act, Rules and bye-laws and as the society incurred losses consecutively for three years, under the provisions of Section 81A of the Act, the Managing Committee was liable to be superseded as it is stated hereinabove. The said notice is impugned in present petition and petitioners have prayed for writ of prohibition as the provision for issuing notice is conspicuously absent. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited this court’s attention to the notice impugned and premise mentioned in the notice for issuing of the same and contended that the society has in fact not incurred any liability, which could be made basis for issuance of notice impugned in this petition. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the society’s account is regularly audited and the following is the outcome of those audit reports namely – for the year 2006-2007, a loss of Rs. 1,79,136=80ps is reported; for the year 2007-2008, a profit of Rs. 39,756=40ps is reported; for the year 2008-2009, loss of Rs. 72,841/- is reported and for the year 2009-2010, the audit is yet to be carried out, however, the society has on its own assessed projected profit of Rs. 26,172/-. Thus, in any case, society’s audit report do not indicate consistent losses as it is envisaged under Section 81A of the Act for providing reasons for issuance of notice impugned. Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter invited this court’s attention to Sections 84 and 85 of the Act and submitted that before resorting the drastic step of issuance of notice of supersession, it was open to the competent authority to order for re-auditing, in case if it had some doubt in respect of the audit report. Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter invited this court’s attention to Sections 84 and 85 of the Act and submitted that before resorting the drastic step of issuance of notice of supersession, it was open to the competent authority to order for re-auditing, in case if it had some doubt in respect of the audit report. The audit reports were submitted by competent auditors empaneled by competent authority and therefore, prima-facie, it existed no ground for doubting or suspecting those reports. However, in case, if such a doubt is raised, than, nothing prevented the competent authority from undertaking or ordering reaudit as envisaged. The society has also complied with the norms prescribed by the competent authority for maintaining the ratio and as such there is no ground available to the competent authority for issuing the show cause notice. The issuance of show cause notice and subjecting the society to answer the show cause notice has serious repercussion upon the credibility of the society and therefore, writ of prohibition is prayed in the petition. 8. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents invited this court’s attention to the further affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the norms as prescribed under Section 84(10) have already been circulated and brought to the notice of all the concerned societies in respect of prescribing prudential norms as envisaged under Section 84(10) of the Act. The present petition is premature in the sense that the show cause notice should not considered to be giving any cause of action to the society as the society may submit its reply and in case if the reply is found to be proper, the show cause notice is to be dropped by the authority. The invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the receipt of the show cause notice would amount to calling upon this Court to interfere by exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction in a matter which is required to be dealt with by and at the end of the concerned competent authority of the State, the Court, therefore, may not entertain the petition and relegate the present petitioners to the authority where the petitioners may file their reply and satisfy the authority in respect of its stand that the society has not incurred any liability to be superseded. 9. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the impugned notice. 9. This Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the impugned notice. The provisions of Section 81 and 81A of the Act clearly indicate and makes distinction between the powers to be exercised against the society in question. The powers are different though the tenor of the notice is indicative of the fact that notice is not just confined to provisions of Section 81A only and it has all the trapping of Section 81 of the Act, this Court is of the view that authority did not apply its mind to the facts and circumstances before issuing notice in question. Assuming for the sake of examining the submission without holding that the competent authority has issued notice after applying its mind, than also, the facts as they emerged on record namely audit accounts of the society do not disclose ingredient required to be fulfilled before issuing the notice. Section 81A of the Act reproduce hereunder: “Section 81A: Supersession of Committee of Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 81, the supersession of the committee of the State Co-operative Bank or a Central Co-operative Bank under any provision of the Act shall be done only in consultation with Reserve Bank of India. (2) The Committee of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society shall be removed by the Registrar only under the following circumstances, namely: (i) if a society incurs losses for three consecutive years; or (ii) if serious financial irregularities or frauds have been identified; or (iii) if there is perpetual lack of quorum over a period of three months. (3) The members of the committee of a Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society which has been removed under Sub-section (2) shall not be eligible to become a member of the committee for a period of three years from the date of such removal.” 10. Thus for examining the powers under Section 81A, the three requirements are to be considered and in case of any one of them is available, the authority is entitled to issue notice and act thereunder. In the instant case, looking to the tenor of the notice, the Court is of the view that none of aforesaid three conditions as envisaged in Section 81A is said to have been existing, which would have justified issuance of notice. In the instant case, looking to the tenor of the notice, the Court is of the view that none of aforesaid three conditions as envisaged in Section 81A is said to have been existing, which would have justified issuance of notice. The learned Government Pleader is not incorrect in canvassing submission that mere issuance of show cause notice do not provide cause of action requiring interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but in a peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, when a Primary Agriculture Credit society has approached this Court, which is in fact protected by the legislation by appropriate amendment in the year 2008 and when notice, as on the face of it, no material is found to disclose any of the grounds mentioned in Section 81A, then, it will be improper to relegate the issue to find out fault before the Registrar, who do not have jurisdictional power to invoke the issue under Section 81A of the Act. Therefore, in my view, the exercise of powers by competent authority under Section 81A, when facts required for exercising powers were conspicuously absent, would not be countenanced by this Court and hence, petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed accordingly. The notice dated 17.1.2011, impugned in this petition is hereby quashed and set aside. The rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs. P P P P P