- (1.) The petitioner challenges an order dated 10 July 2018 in terms of which the fifth respondent has cancelled the registration of the petitioner co-operative society by exercise of powers conferred by Section 76 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (1965 Act). By the very same order, the respondent has also ordered the winding up of the petitioner society. The order impugned refers to an audit conducted in respect of the petitioner co-operative society and the report submitted pursuant thereto on 3 July 2018. Upon receipt of the audit report various shortcomings were noticed in the conduct of the business and affairs of the petitioner and it was accordingly called upon to explain why further action be not taken for its winding up under Section 72(2) of the 1965 Act. It further appears that the fifth respondent thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order simultaneously winding up the petitioner society and also cancelling its registration. It is this action which is impugned in the instant writ petition.
(2.) Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of this petition has submitted that the fifth respondent has clearly erred in cancelling the registration of the petitioner society since no order of winding up had been formally passed till that date. Sri Mishra submit that the provisions of Section 76 of the 1965 Act can kick into play only once an order of winding up has been passed. According to Sri Mishra before passing an order of winding up the respondents are obliged to follow the procedure prescribed under Chapter XX of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (1968 Rules). Referring to the provisions enshrined in Rules 270 and 271 Sri Mishra submitted that the petitioner society was not afforded even reasonable time to show cause why it be not wound up. Sri Mishra further submitted that the above contention is without prejudice to his principal submission that there could be no simultaneous exercise of powers conferred under Sections 72 and 76 of the 1965 Act. Sri Mishra also underlines the fact that no order of winding up has been published in accordance with the provisions of Rule 271 till date. This he submits is clearly indicative of no winding up order either existing or having come into operation against the petitioner.
(3.) Sri Ramanand Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel on the other hand sought to impress upon us that the impugned order itself effects the winding up of the petitioner society and that therefore, it would be incorrect for the petitioner to contend that no order of winding up existed. Sri Pandey further contends that in terms of the impugned order, the fifth respondent has simultaneously affected the winding up and the cancellation of the registration of the petitioner society and that such a procedure would clearly not fall foul of the provisions of Sections 72 and 76 of the 1965 Act.;