JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have called in question an order dated 9.3.2022 passed by respondent no.2, Joint Commissioner and Joint Registrar, Cooperative, U.P. Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad suspending the first petitioner, which is Committee of Management of a primary agricultural Cooperative Society, in exercise of power under Section 35 (2) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Respondent no.2, while passing the above order, has placed reliance on an interim enquiry report submitted under Section 65 of the Act and has concluded that financial irregularities seem to have been committed by the petitioner Committee of Management. He has also held that there are repeated defaults on part of the petitioner Committee in observing its duties imposed upon it under law and in future there is likelihood of an adverse report coming against the petitioner Committee in enquiry that is pending under Section 65 of the Act. Consequently, it is desirable to keep the petitioner Committee of Management under suspension. By the same order, he has proceeded to appoint an interim Committee comprising of Additional District Cooperative Officer (Banking), Bijnor, Additional District Cooperative Officer, Tehsil Nagina and Additional Development Officer (Cooperative), Vikas Khand, Dhampur. 2. Sri Rakesh Pande, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order suspending the petitioner Committee of Management is erroneous in law inasmuch as no proceeding for supersession of the Committee of Management has yet been initiated. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the language used in sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Act and the judgement of the Supreme Court in Veerpal Singh Vs. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1973, SC 1249. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even otherwise, the impugned order is manifestly illegal inasmuch as the formation of opinion to keep the petitioner Committee of Management under suspension is based on conjecture that in future there is likelihood of an adverse report being submitted against the petitioner Committee in enquiry pending under Section 65 of the Act. He further submitted that certain other irregularities alleged relate to the period when the petitioner Committee of Management was not in power, therefore, it cannot be held accountable for the same. 4. He further submitted that certain other irregularities alleged relate to the period when the petitioner Committee of Management was not in power, therefore, it cannot be held accountable for the same. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents and Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai, who has been heard as an intervenor, submitted that the stage of calling general body meeting as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Act has yet not arrived. They submitted that in view of serious irregularities coming to knowledge of respondent no.2, he was justified in suspending the petitioner Committee of Management. 5. Section 35 (1) and (2), which are relevant for the present controversy, are reproduced below:- “35. Supersession or suspension of Committee of Management.-[(1) Where, in the opinion, of the Registrar the Committee of Management of any Cooperative Society persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws of the society or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, or is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar after affording the Committee of Management a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtaining the opinion of the General Body of the society in a general meeting called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may, by order in writing, supersede the Committee of Management: Provided that where under the prescribed circumstances it is not feasible to convene a general meeting of the General Body of the society, the Registrar may dispense with the requirement of obtaining the opinion of the General Body of the society: Provided further that in the case of Central Co-operative Bank or the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative bank, the suspension or supersession of the Committee of Management shall not be made by the Registrar unless the Reserve Bank of India has been consulted: Provided also that the Committee of Management of the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society can be superseded by the Registrar only on the following grounds- (i) if a society incurs losses for three consecutive years, or (ii) if serious financial irregularities or fraud have been committed, (iii) if there are judicial directives to this effect or there is perpetual lack of quorum. (2) Where the Registrar, while proceeding to take action under sub-section (1) is of opinion that suspension of the Committee of Management during the period of proceeding is necessary in the interest of the society, he may suspend the Committee of Management which shall thereupon cease to function and make such arrangement as he thinks proper for the management of the affairs of the society till the proceedings are completed: Provided that if the Committee of Management so suspended is not superseded it shall be reinstated and the period during which it has remained suspended shall count towards its term.” 6. The power of Registrar to place Committee of Management of a Cooperative Society under suspension has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Veerpal Singh (supra) in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 as follows:- “12. The Registrar has power under Section 35 (1) of the Act to, supersede the committee of management. The circumstances, under which he can exercise his powers are when in the opinion of the Registrar the society makes default or is negligent in the performance of duties imposed on it by the Act or the rules or the bye-laws of the society or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members, or, is otherwise not functioning properly, the Registrar after affording the committee of management a reasonable opportunity of being heard and obtaining the opinion of the general body of the society in a general meeting called for the purpose in the manner prescribed may, by order in writing, supersede the committee of management. 13. These provisions indicate the circumstances under which the Registrar has power to supersede or suspend the committee of management and, to appoint an administrator. Sect-ion 35(2) of the Act confers power on the Registrar to suspend the committee of management during the period of proceedings for supersession. The Registrar has also power under Section 35 (2) of the Act to make arrangement, as he thinks proper for the management of the society till the proceedings are completed. The power to suspend the committee of management during the period of proceedings is exercisable when proceedings for supersession have commenced. The Registrar has also power under Section 35 (2) of the Act to make arrangement, as he thinks proper for the management of the society till the proceedings are completed. The power to suspend the committee of management during the period of proceedings is exercisable when proceedings for supersession have commenced. Section 35 (1) of the Act shows that when the Registrar is of opinion that the committee of a cooperative society makes default or is negligent in the performance of duties or is otherwise not functioning properly the Registrar may supersede the committee of management and has to give an opportunity to the society to be heard in that behalf. The Registrar has also to obtain the opinion of the ,general body of the society. Therefore, the opinion of the Registrar is to be followed by some definite act which will commence the proceedings for supersession. The provisions in the Act indicate that some definite step like the issue of, a notice must be taken under the provisions of Section 35 (1) of the Act with a view to show that proceedings for supersession of the committee are set in motion. 14. It is therefore manifest that power exercisable under Section 35 (2) of the Act is confined to the time during the period of supersession proceedings. Unless the proceedings have started as indicated earlier the Registrar cannot call in aid the power exercisable under Section 35 (2) of the Act.” 7. It is clear from the enunciation of law as made by the Supreme Court in the above judgement that the power to suspend the Committee of Management has to be preceded by an act which reflects that the proceeding for supersession has commenced. Sub-section (1) of Section 35 contemplates two overt acts by the Registrar indicating that proceeding for suspension has commenced, namely (i) issuance of show cause notice calling for explanation of the Committee of Management and (ii) obtaining the opinion of general body of the society in a general meeting called for the purpose. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that none of the above two steps have been taken so far. The Registrar though has formed an opinion that suspension of the petitioner Committee of Management is necessary, but has not taken any steps towards supersession of the Committee of Management. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that none of the above two steps have been taken so far. The Registrar though has formed an opinion that suspension of the petitioner Committee of Management is necessary, but has not taken any steps towards supersession of the Committee of Management. 8. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of suspension has been passed at a premature stage before the proceeding for supersession has actually commenced. 9. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of State respondents and Sri Sujeet Kumar Rai appearing for the intervenor submitted that the Registrar be granted liberty to pass a fresh order instead of keeping the matter pending, as it will delay the matter and there are charges of financial irregularities against the petitioner Committee of Management. 10. Having regard to the above submissions, we quash the impugned order leaving it open to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made above. 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part and is allowed.