ORDER Shrivastava, J. 1. The order passed in this Writ appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected W.A. No.95/2012 (Shyam Sunder Singh Jadon v. State of M.P. and others). 2. The order dated 16.1.2012 passed by learned Writ Court in W.P. No.8518/2011 has been made pivot by the appellants in this appeal which is filed under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay-peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 whereby the learned writ Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that some of the persons against the impugned order (Annexure P-1 filed in the writ court) have filed the appeal before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal and therefore, since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the present appellants also to file appeal, the writ petition was dismissed. However, it is made clear that neither any of the appellant of the present appeal or the appellant of connected Writ Appeal No.95/2012 assailed the order Annexure P-1 which was impugned before the learned writ Court by filing appeal in the Cooperative Tribunal. 3. Undisputedly, the elected body of the District Central Cooperative Bank, District Bhind was superseded vide order dated 2nd December, 2011 (which was annexed as Annexure P-1 before the learned writ Court). The said order was passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chambal Division, Morena. Against the said action of supersession, the present appellants had filed a writ petition before the learned writ Court which has been dismissed on 16.1.2012. 4. Indeed, the contention of Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel for the appellants of this appeal and Shri R.B.S. Tomar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in connected W.A. No. 95/2012 is that without going through the second proviso to Section 53(1) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the Act of 1960”) the supersession was made and such a stereo-type order cannot be passed since there was no previous consultation with the Reserve Bank of India (in short “the RBI”). In support of their contention, learned counsel for the appellants have placed heavy reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this Court Sitaram v Registrar of Co-operative Societies and another, 1986 JLJ 656 = 1986 MPLJ 567 in which it has been held that the term “consultation” should be applied in its full magnitude which includes meaningful consultation and merely sending a copy of show cause notice to the Reserve Bank of India is not sufficient. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that indeed, the same view was recently taken by the Division Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1065/2011 (Sanjay Nagayach v. State of M.P. and others) decided on 13.2.2012 [published in 2012 RN 252 ] and this order was assailed by the State of M.P. before the apex Court. The said appeal was registered as Civil Appeal No.4691/2013. Learned counsel submit that the Supreme Court vide order dated 16th May, 2013 has dismissed the appeals which were filed by the State of M.P. and its functionaries by giving certain directions. Hence, it has been prayed that the same yardsticks be followed in this appeal also. Copy of the said order of the Supreme Court has been placed on record. 5. On the other hand, Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 to 3/State submits that as soon as the letter of the RBI, Annexure P-7 dated 12th April, 2010 was received by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 14.1.2011, a letter was sent to the RBI disclosing their opinion that the view of the RBI be sent for taking action under section 53(2) of the Act of 1960 on the basis of the earlier letter dated 1st April, 2010 and therefore, it cannot be said that the consultation was not made and hence, it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 6. Undoubtedly, the term “consultation” has been magnified by the Division Bench of this Court long back in the case of Sitaram (supra) whereby this Court has held that the terminology “previous consultation” embodied in second proviso to section 53 of the Act of 1960 would mean the meaningful consultation. 6. Undoubtedly, the term “consultation” has been magnified by the Division Bench of this Court long back in the case of Sitaram (supra) whereby this Court has held that the terminology “previous consultation” embodied in second proviso to section 53 of the Act of 1960 would mean the meaningful consultation. At this juncture it would be germane to quote section 53(1) of the Act of 1960 which reads, thus:- Supersession of committee.- (1) If, in the opinion of the Registrar, the committee of any society (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 prejudicial to the interests of the society or its members; or (c) violates the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or byelaws of the society or any order passed by the Registrar: the Registrar may, by order in writing, remove the committee and appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a specified period not exceeding two years in the first instance: Provided that in case of a Co-operative Bank, the order of supersession shall not be passed without previous consultation with the Reserve Bank: Provided further that if no communication containing the views of the Reserve Bank of India, on action proposed is received within forty-five days of the receipt by that Bank of the request soliciting consultation, it shall be presumed that the Reserve Bank of India agrees with the proposed action and the Registrar shall be free to pass such order as may be deemed fit: Provided also that in case of a Cooperative bank, if so required by the Reserve Bank in the public interest or for preventing the affairs of the Co-operative Bank being conducted in a manner, detrimental to the interest of the depositors or for securing the proper management of a Co-operative Bank, the Registrar shall pass an order for the supersession of its committee or managing body by whatever name called and for appointment of an Administrator therefor for such period or periods not exceeding 5 years in the aggregate, as may from time to time be specified by the Reserve Bank and on such appointment, the provisions of sub-sections (4), (5), (6) and (8) shall apply as if orders were passed under sub-section (1): Provided also that if a non-official is appointed in the committee of a primary society, he shall be from amongst the members of that society, entitled for such representation and in case of Central or apex society, if a person is appointed in the committee of such society, he shall be a member of one of its affiliated societies entitled for such representation.” 7. The Principal Seat of this Court in Sanjay Nagayach (supra) wherein the Division Bench at the Principal Seat has held that even if an alternative remedy may exist, but, dismissing the petition on the ground of alternative remedy is merely a rule of discretion and is not a mandate of law. By following the same verdict as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sitaram (supra) it was held in the case of Sanjay Nagayach (supra) that mandatory previous consultation is required before passing of supersession order and such consultation would mean an effective, proper and meaningful consultation, for which the consultee would require to be supplied with all relevant material by the person consulting so that the consultee can apply its mind and form an independent opinion on the subject matter. A mere copy of the show cause notice without a copy of the reply and other relevant material supporting the allegations can hardly be said to form the entire relevant material to enable the consultee to examine all aspects of the matter and to form an independent informed opinion. It has been further held that in such consultation there should be a direct communication in the form of a covering letter addressed directly to the consultee indicating to the consultee that why the material is being sent to the consultee. Mentioning the name of the consultee at an obscure place in the middle of the list of persons to whom the letter addressed to the Board of Directors is endorsed, is more than likely to escape the notice of the consultee. 8. Looking to the deeming clause embodied in the third proviso to section 53(1) of the Act of 1960 which relates to that if no communication containing the views of Reserve Bank of India on the action proposed is received within 30 days of the receipt by the Reserve Bank of the ‘request soliciting consultation’ it shall be presumed that the Reserve Bank of India agrees with the proposed action and the Registrar shall be free to pass such order as he may deem fit. But, the said deeming clause is not applicable in the present case, because the deeming clause has been interrupted by the action of the RBI. But, the said deeming clause is not applicable in the present case, because the deeming clause has been interrupted by the action of the RBI. On bare perusal of Annexure P-7 dated 12th April, 2010 it is luminously clear like a noon day that on receiving the letter dated 1st April, 2010 of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gwalior and Chambal Division, Gwalior, it was asked by the RBI to Joint Registrar to send its proposed opinion. It would be condign to quote the Annexure P-7 in its entirety, which reads thus:- Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad RESERVE BANK OF INDIA lUnHkZ xzkvk_fo ¼Hkksiky½ la- 2068@05-05-07@2009&10 vizSy 12] 2010 la;qDr iath;d] lgdkjh laLFkk;sa] Xokfy;j ,oa pacy laHkkx] Xokfy;j egksn;] e-Á- lgdkjh laLFkk;sa vf/kfu;e] 1960 dh /kkjk 53¼2½ ds v/khu ftyk lgdkjh dsUnzh; cSad e;kZfnr] fHk.M ds lapkyd eaMy dks Hkax djus gsrq dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= tkjh djus ds lacU/k esa —Ik;k mi;qZDr fo”k;kUrxZr vius fnukad 01 vizSy 2010 ds i= Øekad@ fof/k@2010@489 dk lanHkZ ysa] ftlds vuqlkj gesa gekjs ijke’kZ] ;fn dksbZ gks ls vkidks i= dh izkfIr ¼tks gesa fnukad 07 vizSy 2010 dks izkIr gqvk gS½ ls 30 fnu esa voxr djkus dh lwpuk nh x;h gSA bl lacU/k esa ge vkidks ;g lwfpr djrs gSa fd ge gekjs ijke’kZ ls vkidks ftyk lgdkjh dsUnzh; cSad e;kZfnr] fHk.M }kjk vkidks Hksts x;s dkj.k crkvks lwpuk i= ds tokc ij vkidh izfrfdz;k tkuus ds ckn voxr djk;saxsA Hkonh;] ¼ch-,e- vxzoky½ lgk;d egk izcU/kd 9. After the deeming clause was obstructed by the RBI, the ball was sent in the Court of the Joint Registrar to send the proposed opinion and according to us, the opinion should be based upon the material and not like his master’s voice or stereo type. 10. After the deeming clause was obstructed by the RBI, the ball was sent in the Court of the Joint Registrar to send the proposed opinion and according to us, the opinion should be based upon the material and not like his master’s voice or stereo type. 10. Today, a copy of the letter dated 14.1.2011 of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Morena addressed to Sahayak Maha Prabandhak, RBI, Bhopal has been filed by the respondents which indicate that because the reply of the notices has not been received well in time, therefore, it was requested to the RBI to send its opinion in terms of Section 53(1) of the Act of 1960 but according to us, merely sending a letter would not be sufficient for the simple reason that in the said letter it has been mentioned that reply was not received, which would mean that certainly the notices must have been issued to the Board of Directors. No such copy of notice was sent along with the letter and therefore, according to us, such type of consultation would not come within the ambit and sweep of the effective, proper and meaningful consultation. Hence, on this short ground, the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chambal Division, Morena dated 2.12.2011 cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby quashed. However, the Joint Registrar will be free to invoke the provision of section 53(1) of the Act of 1960 by sending necessary documents in accordance with law to the RBI for sending its opinion. 11. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by learned writ Court is set aside and at present the order Annexure P-1 dated 2.12.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar and which was annexed as Annexure P-1 before learned writ Court is also hereby set aside. Let a copy of this order be kept in the record of W.A. No.95/2012.