JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties. 2. The name of the petitioner company was ordered to be struck off vide notification dated 11.5.2010 issued by the Registrar of the Companies U.P. and Uttarakhand in exercise of powers under Section 560 (5) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act’) and the same is said to have been published in the gazette for the period 22nd May, 2010 to 28th May, 2010. 3. The above action of the Registrar of the Companies has been impugned by the petitioner by filing this petition under Section 560 (6) of the Act. 4. The Registrar of the Companies filed a counter-affidavit and this Court vide order dated 2.2.2016 permitted him to bring on record the details of the entire procedure followed by him sequence wise for striking the name of the petitioner company alongwith the supporting documents. 5. In pursuance to the above order the Registrar of the Companies has filed supplementary-affidavit. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the procedure laid down under Section 560 of the Act was not followed by the Registrar of the Companies in passing the impugned order and directing for striking of the name of the petitioner company. He submits that the second letter was not sent within time; there is no publication of any notice in the gazette, the notice of the publication in the gazette was not sent to the petitioner company by registered post; and that the final order was also not published in the official gazette as contemplated by Section 560 (5) of the Act. 7. Section 560 of the Act prescribe that the Registrar of the Companies is empowered to strike the name of any company from the register of the companies provided he has reasonable cause to believe that the company is not carrying on business or is in operation. However, before passing any such order so as the inquire whether the company is carrying on business or not he is required to send to the company concerned a letter by post inquiring whether the company is functional or not. 8. However, before passing any such order so as the inquire whether the company is carrying on business or not he is required to send to the company concerned a letter by post inquiring whether the company is functional or not. 8. If the Registrar does not receive any reply to the aforesaid letter within one month, he is required to send a second letter by post within fourteen days after the expiry of one month, informing the company that if no answer is received within a month a notice shall be published in the gazette with the view to strike off the name of the company. 9. Even then if no reply is received to the second letter within one month, he shall cause a notice to be published in the official gazette expressing intention to strike off the name of the company from the register of the company at the expiration of three months unless cause is shown to the contrary. It is thereafter on the expiry of time mentioned in the gazette if no cause to the contrary is shown, the Registrar may strike off the name of the company and publish a notice thereof in gazette, whereupon the company shall stand dissolved. 10. The above procedure is mandatory before passing an order for striking the name of the company and to make publication in the official gazette that the company stand dissolved. 11. In the instant case, the Registrar of the Companies as per his own showing had sent the first letter by post to the company on 15.10.2009. Therefore, the second letter by registered post was to be sent by him within fourteen days on the expiry of one month thereof i.e. up to 30th November, 2009, but the Registrar of the Companies issued the second letter by Registered/Speed post on 18.12.2009 much after the expiry of stipulated period of fourteen days from the expiry of one month of the first letter. Thus, committing breach of Section 560 (2) of the Act in sending the second letter. 12. Thus, committing breach of Section 560 (2) of the Act in sending the second letter. 12. After the second letter was sent by registered post, the Registrar of the Companies is said to have published a notice in the official gazette for the period 24th April, 2010 to 30th April, 2010 with the view to strike off name of the petitioner company but no such notice has been brought on record to show the contents of the notice published in the gazette. In fact a perusal of annexure-5 to the supplementary-affidavit reveals that no notice as contemplated by Section 560 (3) of the Act was published in the gazette except the names of the proposed companies including that of the petitioner company which were to be struck off. Such a notification without expressing any intention to strike off the name of the company is no publication as mandated under the provisions of Section 560 (3) of the Act. 13. The notice intimating that the name of the company shall be struck off and it will stand dissolved on the expiry of three months required to be sent by registered post was sent on 11.2.2010, but there is nothing on record to indicate that it was sent by registered post. Not even an averment to this effect has been made in the affidavit that it was sent by registered post. Thus, again breach of Section 560 (3) occurred on part of the Registrar of the Companies. 14. The Registrar of the Companies finally vide notification dated 11.5.2010 passed an order that the name of the company has been struck off and that it has been dissolved. This order/notification required to be published in the official gazette in accordance with the provisions of Section 560 (5) of the Act. According to the Registrar of the Companies it has been published in the gazette on 22nd May to 28th May, 2010, but again the said gazette only contains the name of the company but no recital to the effect that the name of the company has been struck off and it has been dissolved. Thus, the said publication is incomplete and is not in accordance with law. 15. Apart from the above, the first publication was made in the gazette dated 24th April 2010 to 30th April, 2010. The registered post notice thereof was issued on 11.2.2010. Thus, the said publication is incomplete and is not in accordance with law. 15. Apart from the above, the first publication was made in the gazette dated 24th April 2010 to 30th April, 2010. The registered post notice thereof was issued on 11.2.2010. The publication in the official gazette and the notice by registered post allows three months time before taking a final decision to strike off the name of the company. However, the final order to struck off the name of the company was passed on 11.5.2010 even before the period of three months had expired from the publication of the gazette by taking three months period from the date of the notice. The date of the notice is not relevant and material when a notice to that effect was also to be published in the gazette. In that case the date of publication of the notice in the gazette would be taken to be the date of notice for the purposes of allowing three months period for striking off the name of the company. The Registrar of the Companies thus, manifestly erred in passing the order dated 11.5.2010 even before the period of three months had expired from the notice contemplated under Section 560 (3) of the Act. Moreover, it may not be out of context to state that none of the notice issued by the Registrar of the Companies mentioned that he has reason to believe that the company is not carrying on business or is not in operation or that in the absence of reply given by the company he is satisfied that the company is non-functional. In such circumstances, not only there is violation of procedure prescribed for striking off the name of the company from the register of the company but there appears to be no reason on part of the Registrar of the Companies to believe that the company is defunct. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.5.2010 and publication of the name of the petitioner company in the gazette of 22nd May 2010 to 28th May, 2010 are set aside and the name of the company is directed to be restored to its original place in the register of the Companies maintained by the Registrar of the Companies U.P. and Uttarakhand. 17. The company petition stands allowed.