N.W. Sambre, J.

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. In Writ Petition No. 7034 of 2013, petitioners are shareholders of the Co-operative Bank who is petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7383 of 2013. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7383 of 2013 is the Cooperative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, whose Banking Licence is ordered to be cancelled by Reserve Bank of India. In Writ Petition No. 7384 of 2013, petitioners are members of Co-operative Bank who is petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7383 of 2013.

In all the three petitions, order dated 28th February 2013 passed by the Commissioner, Co-operation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune-Respondent to the petitions, in exercise of powers under Section 110A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is questioned.

Since in all these petitions, a common issue is involved as the petitioners have questioned the order dated 28th August 2013, passed by Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune, petitions are being disposed of by common judgment.

3. The writ petition by the shareholders of the respondent No. 4-Bank, the respondent No. 4-Bank has suffered an order under Section 110A(ii) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "M.C.S. Act" for the sake of brevity), whereby the respondent-Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of M.C.S. Act and in compliance with the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India ordered winding of the respondent No. 4-society under Section 110A(ii) of the M.C.S. Act and appointed Assistant Registrar Mr. V.S. Jagdale as Liquidator.

4. The respondent No. 4-Bank is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies. Act 1960. After the registration of the same, having regard to the aim and object of said cooperative society, the respondent-Reserve Bank of India has granted banking licence to respondent No. 4 on July 23, 1998 in view of provisions of Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.

5. The said Bank is required to conduct its business strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and the M.C.S. Act. The respondent-Reserve Bank of India has issued show-cause notice to respondent No. 4-Bank on 9th April 2013 under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act. The said show-cause notice relates to the financial position of the respondent No. 4-Bank, as was noticed by the said respondent as on 31st March 2011 and on 31st March 2012. The respondent-Reserve Bank of India has categorically taken note of the financial position of the Bank and has called upon the respondent No. 4-Bank to show-cause as to why, the licence granted to it on July 23, 1998 to carry on the banking business under Section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, should not be cancelled and liquidation of the Bank cannot be ordered.

6. While responding to the above referred show-cause notice, the respondent No. 4-Bank, by its reply dated May 14, 2013 denied the allegations made in the show-cause notice and pointed out the progress of the Bank qua the outstanding loans and the recoveries effected. The respondent No. 4 in the reply has stated that the Directors of the respondent No. 4 have taken serious note of the show-cause notice in its meeting held on April 30, 2013 and has prepared an action plan for recovery, which will be implemented strictly. The Bank sought six months' time to take corrective action and to repose the improvement in financial condition of the Bank.

7. Having regard to the explanation tendered by the respondent No. 4-Bank, the respondent-Reserve Bank of India passed order on August 20, 2013 thereby cancelling the Banking licence of respondent No. 4-Bank. The respondent-Reserve Bank of India recorded its satisfaction