Judgment 1. Petitioners have assailed order 31st March 2001 passed by respondent no. 3 District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Nagpur under Section 102 (1) (c) (ii) (iv) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Act”) winding all the affairs of Society viz. Samta Grahak Sahakari Sanstha of which petitioner no. 1 is Secretary and petitioner no. 2 is President. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-Society submits that petitioner-Society is continuously doing its business and its accounts have been audited from time to time which are certified by auditors of the Department of Cooperation. He further submits that before passing order under Section 102 of the Act, it was obligatory for respondent no. 3 to hold enquiry as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act regarding constitution, working and financial conditions of the petitioner-Society. He also submits that respondent no. 3 either himself or through an authorized person on his own motion or on the application of a creditor can inspect books of indebted society as provided under Section 84 of the Act. According to him, neither enquiry under Section 83 nor inspection as contemplated under Section 84 of the Act was conducted by respondent Deputy Registrar and, therefore, impugned order of liquidation is arbitrary bad in law. As regards the observation in the impugned order that petitioner-Society failed to communicate its new address to the Authorities, is also incorrect. He points out that by adinterim order of this Court, petitioners were permitted to run fair price shop which they were already running and that order was confirmed on 6.10.2006 while rule in the petition was issued. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has not seriously disputed the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioners. 4. As regards the communication of new address, from letter dated 19.7.1987 (Annexure1 to the petition), it is seen that the petitioner-Society had informed change in its address and requested the Deputy Registrar that all future correspondence be made to its new address at House No. 8/1115, Rameshwari Road, Parwati Nagar, Nagpur. Further, impugned order no where reflects that enquiry as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act or inspection as envisaged under Section 84 of the Act was carried out by respondent no. 3 which is sine qua non before passing order under Section 102 of the Act. 5. Further, impugned order no where reflects that enquiry as contemplated under Section 83 of the Act or inspection as envisaged under Section 84 of the Act was carried out by respondent no. 3 which is sine qua non before passing order under Section 102 of the Act. 5. Besides above, it can be seen from communication dated 17.2.1990 sent by the Auditor, Cooperative Societies addressed to petitioner-Society that audit objections pertaining to the inspection held for the year 1988-89 were pointed out to the petitioner Society and it was asked to remove shortcomings so pointed out within a stipulated period. From Annexure-3 it is seen that petitioner-Society had submitted compliance report. There is communication dated 8.4.1993 addressed to the petitioner-Society by the Auditor, Cooperative Societies bringing to the notice of petitioner-Society audit objections for the year 1991-92 and asking it to remove the same within and report compliance. By additional affidavit dated 19th June 2014, petitioner-Society has brought on record copies of audit notes for the years 2002-2004, 2005-2007, 2007-2010 and 2010-2012. 6. In view of what is observed in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, impugned order does not stand to the test of law. Impugned order suffers from impropriety, illegality, unreasonableness and cannot be sustained. It is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, impugned order dated 31st March 2001 passed by respondent no. 3 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.