JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an application under Article 226 of the constitution challenging an order dated 2nd of September, 1978. The said order which is Annexure C to the petition is to the following effect : - "under Section 24 (1) of the west Bengal Co-operative Societies Act of 1973 (West Bengal Act no. XXXVIII of 1973), Sri A. Mukherjee Co-operative Development Officer (L and R), Calcutta is hereby authorised to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the Bank Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd., 23a, netaji. Subhas Road, Calcutta 700001, a registered co-operative society in the District of Calcutta. This authority will hold good till the 30th September, 1978. Sd/- A. C. Dey, deputy Registrar of Co-operative: societies, Central Zone, Calcutta. " 2. THE impugned order was passed, under section 84 of the West Bengal co-operative Societies Act, 1973. The said section reads as follows: " (1) The Registrar may, at any time, of this own motion, hold, by himself or by a person authorised by him by order in writing, an inquiry into the constitution working and financial condition of a co-operative society. (2) Such an inquiry shall be held on the application of- (a) the financial bank, if any, of which the society is a member and a debtor ; (b) a majority of the members of the managing committee of the society ; (c) one third of the members of the society, each of whom has been a member of the society for not less than twelve months immediately preceding the date of the application and shall have deposited such security for costs, if any, as the Registrar may (d) direct ; (d) creditors representing not less than one-half of the borrowed capital of the society, who shall have deposited such security for costs, if any, as the registrar may direct : provided that, in the case of any society having more than one thousand and five hundred members, an application under this sub-section may be presented by delegates elected in the prescribed manner. (3) The Registrar shall communicate the report of any inquiry under this section or a summary thereof to the society, to the financing bank, if any, of which the society is a member, and to the creditors, who applied for the inquiry. (3) The Registrar shall communicate the report of any inquiry under this section or a summary thereof to the society, to the financing bank, if any, of which the society is a member, and to the creditors, who applied for the inquiry. " In this connection it may be relevant to refer to section 10 of the said Act which is as follows :- "10. Subject1 to the rules, the state Government may, by general or special order in this behalf, confer all or any of the powers, or impose all or any of the duties, entrusted to the Registrar by or under this Act, other than those specified in the First Schedule,- (a) upon any person appointed under section 9 to assist the registrar; and (b) upon any co-operative society in respect of any other co-operative society which is a member of the co-opera live society first mentioned. " It is not disputed that the powers mentioned in section 84 of the act are not included in the First schedule of the said Act. This is an application by the petitioners who claim to be the Chairman and Members of a registered co-operative Society in respect of which the impugned order Ms been passed. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of Rule 27 of the west Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules the Managing Committee of the said co-operative Bank at its meeting held at the Board Room of the said co -operative Bank on 10th December, 1977 had framed regulations for the election of delegates for the annual general meeting of the said Co-operative Society. In pursuance of the said regulation the secretary of the Co-operative Society, a salaried employee issued a general notice on the 25th April, 1975 in compliance with me decision of the Managing committee. In terms of the said notice, according to the petitioner, 61 delegates were to be elected by 6037 members of the said Co-operative Society. In accordance with the said notice dated 25th april, 1978 the draft voters list was available with the said Co-operative Bank's office and no objection to the said draft notice was received on or about 31st may, 1978. In accordance with the said notice dated 25th april, 1978 the draft voters list was available with the said Co-operative Bank's office and no objection to the said draft notice was received on or about 31st may, 1978. In as much as there was a sudden strike by the Officers of all the banks in India excepting the foreign banking companies, on the 12th June, 1973 the scrutiny of 137 nomination papers which were filed by the members of the said Co-operative Society in pursuance of the notice dated 27th april. 1978 could not be done by the managing Committee on the 28th June, 1978. It was, however, decided in the evening of the said 12th June, 1978, that the Managing Committee would scrutinize the said 137 nomination papers on the 13th June, 1978, at 3 P.M. It is the case of the petitioners that on the 13th June, 1978, at about 3 P.M. when the petitioners when petitioners the said 137 nomination papers some 150 persons of whom the majority were non-members and some members stormed the Board Room of the Managing Committee of the said Co-operatives society and physically overpowered the petitioners and coerced the petitioners under threat of physical assault to their dictation on the basis of their factional interest and political colour. 3. THE election could not thereafter be held an they filed a suit in the city Civil Court were these persons have obtained an injunction which I am told is still continuing. It is the case of the petitioners that the accounts of the said Society has been audited up to June, 1975. Upon these facts the petitioners challenge the impugned order as beyond jurisdiction under section 84 of the Act. 4. THE first submission urged on behalf of the petitioners is that sub-section (1) of Sec. 84 must be controlled by sub-section (2) of the said section. Subsection (2) as I have indicated before enjoins the Registrar to hold an enquiry only on the application of certain spiffed bodies or persons mentioned in different clauses of sub-section (2) of section 84. It is indisputable that in this case no such application had been made by any such person. I am unable to accept this contention that sub-section (1) must be controlled by section 2. It is indisputable that in this case no such application had been made by any such person. I am unable to accept this contention that sub-section (1) must be controlled by section 2. Sub-section (1) in contra distinction to sub-section (2) gives the discretionary power to the Registrar to order an enquiry into the situation Working and financial condition of a Co-operative society. Though the power is admittedly unconditional in its term, it must, in my opinion, be used in such a manner so as to sub-serve the purpose of the act. If it is used otherwise the exercise of the power will be arbitrary and in appropriate case would be struck down. But in this case having regard to the facts there was dispute about the election cases which are pending regarding the same and election could not be held because what the petitioners called illegal and improper activities of some creditors, in my opinion, it cannot be said that there was no objective basis for the Registrar to exercise his discretionary power which he was entitled to do of his own motion. Sub-section (1) in express terms authorised the Registrar to order an enquiry "of his own motion''. Therefore expression of his own motion, in my opinion cannot be controlled by the power mentioned in sub-section (2) which can only be exercised on an application of certain persons or bodies. In case of such application the registrar has no discretion but to order an enquiry, but in case of sub-section (1) the Registrar has a discretion but he must exercise such discretion having regard to the purposes of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, the exercise of the power by the Registrar by the impugned order cannot be called either to be arbitrary or for purposes which are foreign to the objects of the Act. If this power under sub-section (1) is read as to be exercisable only to sub serve the objects of the Act, then in my opinion, such power cannot also be character raised as arbitrary. It was vaguely suggested that under section 10 the Registrar was himself only competent to Order an enquiry but in the instant case by the impugned order the Deputy Registrar has ordered the enquiry. As I have mentioned before there was no. It was vaguely suggested that under section 10 the Registrar was himself only competent to Order an enquiry but in the instant case by the impugned order the Deputy Registrar has ordered the enquiry. As I have mentioned before there was no. dispute that the powers under section 84 are not covered by the First Schedule of the Act. Therefore these powers can be delegated. It can be presumed from the very fact that the registration of the petitioner Society of which the petitioners are members had been granted by the Deputy Registrar and or Assistants Registrar, that this power had been delegated to the Deputy Registrar. It was, thirdly, urged that the impugned power in question was exercised arbitrarily. In this connection my attention was drawn to the averments made in paragraph 34 of the petition. Now these allegations ate bald allegations and naturally there has been a bare denial of these allegations in the affidavit-in-opposition. The onus lies heavily on one who charges an administrative body that he has exercised power mala fide. The petitioners in their bald statements have not given any particulars of such allegation of mala fides. In these circumstances. I am unable to sustain the allegations of mala fide. For the reasons aforesaid this application fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule Nisi is discharged interim orders, if any, are vacated. No order as to costs. Rule discharged no order as to costs.