JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner has moved an application seeking to recall the dissolution order dated 14th July, 2009 passed by the respondent Registrar of Companies in terms of Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 and published the Gazette on of 5th September-11 September, 2009. The contention of the petitioner is that she is Director and also the widow of the another Director who was managing the affairs of Company. The authorized share capital of the company was i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- divided in 50,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. The Company had purchased agricultural land in the year 1996 in Village 5E Choti, Patwar Halka 4 ML, Tehsil and District Shri Ganganagar and the name of the company was entered in jamabandi. The State Government had initiated land acquisition proceedings and the land of the company was included in the notification dated 4th March, 2003 and 20th December, 2003. It is further stated that the company was filing its annual return as per section 159 of the Act of 1956 upto the year 2005. The notification of acquisition was challenged before the High Court at Jodhpur by the Company and the writ petition was allowed vide order dated 20.1.2014 in favour of the company. The State Government has preferred an appeal against the said order and the Division Bench has passed an order of status quo while staying the operation of the order of the Single Judge. As the founder Director and subscriber of the Company, Bhim Sain Garg expired after a prolong illness on 4th October, 2008, the petitioner states that she as widow and could not pay attention to the company affairs of the company and was first following up the acquisition proceedings and litigation relating to the property of the company before the High Court and the proceedings are still pending. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices under Section 560(1)(2) and (3) were issued on the same date i.e. 14th July, 2009 and the notices under Section 560(5) has also been issued on 14th July, 2009 and therefore the procedure as provided under 560 was not followed for passing orders of the dissolution and striking off the name of the company from the Register. It is further submitted that the company had been formed with a pious purpose of construction of cancer hospital at District Shri Ganga Nagar, the father of late Shri Bhim Sain Garg had expired due to cancer and therefore the Director late Shri Bhim Sain Garg wanted to construct the Cancer Hospital in the name of his late father. Subsequently, Shri Bhim Sain Garg also expired and therefore, his wife i.e. petitioner wanted to fulfill her late husband's wishes and dreams by constructing the hospital. It is submitted that if the company is not revived and the order of dissolution is not set aside, the purpose would be defeated. 3. The Deputy Registrar Companies has filed reply and pointed out that the application for dissolution was moved by the Directors themselves on 13.1.2006 and therefore the process regarding section 560(1) & (2) were mere formalities, since the application had contained facts that the company was not in operation and had become defunct and also did not have any assets or liabilities on the said date. The Registrar issued notice under Section 560(3) of the Act of 1956 and directed the same to be published in terms thereof. The order was passed under 560(5) of the Act of 1956 on 13.1.2006. The date of 14th July, 2009 was only when entries made in the process of computerization. The original notice given in 2006 has been placed on record on 13th January, 2006 has already been placed on record. The entries are which have been placed by the petitioner are subsequent system generated e-mails and the mail ID of the Company and it cannot be said that the respondent office had de novo started the process of striking off in 2009. It is also pointed out that the balance sheets for the period were not filed 2005 to 2009 till the date of stricking off the company's name and therefore the company cannot be said to be functioning. Submission of false declaration at the time of filing of application dated 6.1.2006 has also been raised; however, not seriously pressed. In view that acquisition proceedings had been initiated. 4. I have heard both the sides counsel and examined the law as cited rule under Section 560 of the Act of 1956 which reads as under:- "Para 560 Power of Registrar to strike defunct company off register. 1. In view that acquisition proceedings had been initiated. 4. I have heard both the sides counsel and examined the law as cited rule under Section 560 of the Act of 1956 which reads as under:- "Para 560 Power of Registrar to strike defunct company off register. 1. Where the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe that a company is not carrying on-business or in operation, he shall send to the company by post a letter inquiring whether the company is carrying on business or in operation. 2. If the Registrar does not within one month of sending the letter receive any answer thereto, he shall, within fourteen days after the expiry of the month, send to the company by post a registered letter referring to the first letter, and stating that no answer thereto has been received and that, if an answer is not received to the second letter within one month from the date thereof, a notice will be published in the Official Gazette with a view to striking the name of the company off the register. 3. If the Registrar either receives an answer from the company to the effect that it is not carrying on business or in operation, or does not within one month after sending the second letter receive any answer, he may publish in the Official Gazette, and send to he company by registered post, a notice that, at the expiration of three months from the date of that notice, the name of the company mentioned therein will, unless cause is shown to the contrary, be out off the register and the company will be dissolved. 4. If, in any case where a company is being would to, the Registrar has reasonable cause to believe either that to liquidator is acting, or that the affairs of the company have been completely wound up, and any returns required to be made by the liquidator have not been made for a period of six consecutive months, the Registrar shall publish in the Official Gazette and send to the company or the liquidator, if any, a like notice as is provided in sub-section (3). 5. 5. At the expiry of the time mentioned in the notice referred to in sub-section (3) or (4), the Registrar may, unless cause to the contrary is previously shown by the company, strike its name off the register, and shall publish notice thereof in the Official Gazette; and on the publication in the Official Gazette of this notice, the company shall stand dissolved; Provided that- (a) the liability, if any, of every director, the managing agent, secretaries and treasurers, manager or other officer who was exercising any power of management, and of every member of the company, shall continue and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved; and (b) nothing in this sub-section shall affect the power of the Court to wind up a company the name of which has been struck off the register. 6. If a company, or any member of creditor thereof, feels aggrieved by the company having been struck off the register, the court, on a application made by the company, member or creditor before the expiry of twenty years from the publication in the Official Gazette of the notice aforesaid, may, if satisfied that the company was, at the time of the striking off, carrying on business or in operation or otherwise that it is just that the company be restored to the register, order the name of the company to be restored to the register; and the Court may, by the order, give such directions and make such provisions as seem just for placing the company and all other persons in the same position as nearly as may be as if the name of the company had not been struck off. 7. Upon a certified copy of the order under sub-section (6) being delivered to the Registrar for registration, the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been stuck off. 8. 7. Upon a certified copy of the order under sub-section (6) being delivered to the Registrar for registration, the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been stuck off. 8. A letter or notice to be sent under this section to a company may be addressed to the company at its registered office, or if no office has been registered, to the care of some director, the managing agent, secretaries and treasures, manager or other officer of the company, or if there is no director, managing agent, secretaries and treasurers, manager or officer of the company whose name and address are known to the Registrar, may be sent to each of the persons who subscribed the memorandum, addressed to him at the address mentioned in the memorandum. 9. A notice to be sent under this section to a liquidator may be addressed to the liquidator at his last known place of business." 5. The petitioner has relied on judgment reported in 2004 Company Law Cases Volume 212 page 796; Vijaywada Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs. Registrar of Non-Investing Companies, wherein it held as under: at page 804: "Though the petitioner claimed that it has been carrying on business and was in operation since its incorporation and was submitting the annual returns and statement of accounts to the respondent promptly and regularly since 1990, it is its admitted case that it had not filed annual returns and statement on account for three years from 1998-99 to 2000-01. And inasmuch as the petitioner failed to submit the annual returns and statement of accounts, the respondent passed orders striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the register of the respondent and also published the final notice in the A.P. Gazette vide Notification No. 37, Page No. 139, dated 14.9.2000. And inasmuch as the petitioner failed to submit the annual returns and statement of accounts, the respondent passed orders striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the register of the respondent and also published the final notice in the A.P. Gazette vide Notification No. 37, Page No. 139, dated 14.9.2000. The petitioner to prove its case that it has been carrying on business and is in operation uninterruptedly since its incorporation, in the reply affidavit stated that it had filed the annual returns and statement of accounts for the years 1998-99 to 2000-01 belatedly on 7.2.2001 along with necessary fee, and also filed documents, namely copies of the minutes of the annual general body meeting and the minutes of the management committee meeting of the petitioner and the fortnightly newspaper, a perusal of which go to show that the petitioner was, in fact, carrying on business and was in operation on the date of striking off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the register of the respondent, and is continuing to actively assist the promotion of trade, commerce and industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh, I am of the consideration opinion, that the company petition deserves to be allowed." 6. As regards judgments of 1954, it is stated that earlier Section 247 of the Old Companies Act, 1913 was in existence which was similar to new provision of Section 560 under the Act of 1956. 7. From the aforesaid provision, there are four aspects which needs to be noted firstly; Section 560(6) is not mandatory provision and discretionary power has been provided to the Court. No doubt the discretion has to be exercised with well reasons and subject to the law on the issue. It has been based on three preconditions. One of the three preconditions namely that the company was carrying on business at the time when it as stuck off; firstly it is in operation at the time when it was struck off and thirdly when otherwise Court finds it just that the company should be restored to the register. Thus, after satisfying itself to above, the Court would also satisfy that the company is restored would if be in a position to carry on business of the company. In the case of AIR 1954 M.B. 70 (Vol. Thus, after satisfying itself to above, the Court would also satisfy that the company is restored would if be in a position to carry on business of the company. In the case of AIR 1954 M.B. 70 (Vol. 41, C.N. 42): Bhogilal vs. Registrar similar provision 247(6) it was held as under: "Para 7. But besides this it is difficult to see why it is not just to restore the name of the company to the register. The petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of its dues. The present company is a private limited company. No steps were taken to discharge the liability which they owed to the petitioner. The effect of the order of removal would be that the company will be deemed to be dissolved and it may be difficult for him to obtain the fruits of his decree. The conduct of the directors is not bringing the fact of pending suit to the notice of the Registrar, though attempted to be justified on the ground that they stated what the fact was as they understood and what their opinion was, cannot be said to be above board. Had the Registrar known that the company was actually defending a suit filed by the petitioner, it is extremely unlikely that he would have ordered the name of the company to be removed from the register." 8. In case of AIR 1954 M.B. 146 (Vol. 41, C.N. 70): Umed Bhai vs. Moreshwar, it was held as under: "Para 8 It is clear from the facts stated above that at the time of when the time when the Registrar issued notice in the Gazette calling upon the persons concerned to show cause why the name of the Company should not be removed from the register the suit filed by the petitioner in Bombay High Court was pending and was being contested on behalf of the Mills. Under these circumstances it is clear that there was a contested claim against the Mills and the Company was actually in operation though it was not doing business. Under these circumstances it is clear that there was a contested claim against the Mills and the Company was actually in operation though it was not doing business. I have held in - 'Bhogilal vs. Registrar, Joint Stock Companies Madhya Bharat Gwalior', AIR 1954 Madh-B 70(A) that when a suit is actually pending against a Company and is being contested by it at the time of the removal of its name from the register it is proper to direct the restoration of the name of the Company particularly when the Directors were aware of the fact of the contested litigation and were actually taking part in it. In this case it could not be said that the Directors were absolutely ignorant of the steps taken by the Registrar particularly when after the removal it was the opponent No. 1 himself who took care to inform the petitioner's attorneys that the name of the Company has been removed from the register. Para 9 Under the circumstances I think it proper to direct the restoration of the name of the Company to the register of the companies Madhya Bharat." 9. From the facts which come on record, I find that the company was not carrying on any business at the time of striking off; in fact there is an application moved by the Directors which includes the petitioner herself for proceedings under Section 560 and with the prayer to strike off the company. However, the issue is whether the Directors can move an application subsequently for restoration of the name of the company in the register of companies. Company is a creature of the statute and if it is stuck off from the register, it stands dissolved. It can be revived and restored for the period which has been prescribed under Section 560 of 20 years and any member or creditor who may be aggrieved of the order of stuck off may move such an application under Section 560(6) of the Act of 1956 independently for seeking its restoration. The act of the Directors in moving the application for stuck off would therefore not be at part to move restoration under section 560(6) and in my view such application cannot be ousted on the count of having been moved by one of the Directors, who was earlier signatory to the application seeking stuck off. 10. The act of the Directors in moving the application for stuck off would therefore not be at part to move restoration under section 560(6) and in my view such application cannot be ousted on the count of having been moved by one of the Directors, who was earlier signatory to the application seeking stuck off. 10. This Court is only to be satisfied whether the company was in carrying of business or in operation or otherwise the first two conditions are to be seen at the stage when the order was stuck off was passed while the justification of restoration has to be examined in presentee. Once the company has initiated litigation before the High Court relating to its property which was put under acquisition and the issue is pending before this Court and an appeal has been taken up by the State Government against the said company, it is apparent that the company is in operation in legal terms although, cessation of business is on record and the same would not automatically mean that the company was in operation as the company is still representing in the case before the Court. In the circumstances, the restoration I am satisfied that time when the company was struck off it was in operation. While I am satisfied that the company was not carrying on business on the day when it was struck off, in view of the law held in the case of Umedbhai vs. Moreshwar: AIR 1954 M.B. 146 (Vol. 41, C.N. 70) (supra), I find that the company was in operation. 11. I have also examined the justification for the present application and find that in terms of the objects of the company and what has been stated on record, it is apparent that if the company is restored, it shall have beneficiary for the public at large if the hospital for treatment of cancer and other treatments is set up at Tehsil and district Shri Ganganagar where the land is situated. It cannot be ignored that medical facilities in the villages and shall towns needs augmentation. If the company is allowed to be revived and restored, the public will be benefited. 12. Keeping in view of above, this application for restoration is allowed. It cannot be ignored that medical facilities in the villages and shall towns needs augmentation. If the company is allowed to be revived and restored, the public will be benefited. 12. Keeping in view of above, this application for restoration is allowed. However, as Registrar was required to issue notices and maintain records relating to the company, it would be just and proper to impose the cost of One Lac to be deposited with the Registrar of Companies within two months.