VENKATESH, J. ( 1 ) THE Assistant Registrar of Coperative Societies, Indi Sub-division, indi (respondent-1 herein), acting under S. 64 of the Karnataka Co-perative societies Act, 1959 (the Act), appointed the 2nd Respt, herein to hold an enquiry into the affairs of the Nada B. K. V. M. P. Co-operative Society Ltd. , Indi (hereinafter called the Society ). The 1st petitioner-Society and the 2nd petitioner, who is said to be the Director of the Society, while challenging the said order of the Asst. 'registrar dt. 28-3-1983, (order No. GIMiscjloan: enq 82-83-Annexure-A), have also been questioning the constitutional validity of sub-sec. (1) of S. 64 of the Act contending that that provision is violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 245 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) HOWEVER, while seeking Rule, the learned Counsel for the petitioners confined his attack to say that S. 64 (1) of the Act confers unbridled powers on the Registrar and, therefore, was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) S. 64 of the Act reads as follows: "64. Inquiry by Registrar- (1) The registrar may, of his own motion, by himself or by a person authorised by him in writing hold an enquiry into any matter specified in the order touching the constitution, working and financial condition of a Co-operative Society. (2) An inquiry of the nature referred to in sub-sec, (l) shall be held on the application of- (a) Co-operative Society to which the society concerned is affiliated; (b) a majority of the members of the committee of the society; or (c) not less than one-third of total number of members of the society. (2) An inquiry of the nature referred to in sub-sec, (l) shall be held on the application of- (a) Co-operative Society to which the society concerned is affiliated; (b) a majority of the members of the committee of the society; or (c) not less than one-third of total number of members of the society. (3) The Registrar or the persons authorised by him under sub-sec, (l) shall, for the purpose of an inquiry under this sub-section have following powers, namely:-- (a) he shall, at all times, have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in the custody of the Society and may summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts securities, cash or other properties to produce the same at any public office at the headquarters of the Society or any branch thereof; (b) he may summon any person who, he has reason to believe has knowledge of any of the affairs "of society, to appear before him at public office at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath; and (c) (i) he may, notwithstanding any rule or bye-law specifying the period of notice for the general meeting of the Society require the officers of the Society to call such a general meeting at such time and place at the headquarters of the Society or any branch thereof and to determine such matters as may be directed by him, and where the officers of the Society refuse to call 'such meeting he shall have power to call it himself; (ii) any meeting called under clause (i) shall have the power of the general meeting called under the bye-laws of the Society and its proceeding shall be regulated by such bye-laws except that no quorum shall be necessary for such meeting. (4) When an inquiry is made under this section the Registrar shall communicate the result of the inquiry to the Society and to the Co-operative Society, if any, to which that society is affiliated". Counsel for the petitioner argues that the power conferred to hold an inquiry into "any matter specified in the order touching the constitution, working, and financial condition. . . . . . Counsel for the petitioner argues that the power conferred to hold an inquiry into "any matter specified in the order touching the constitution, working, and financial condition. . . . . . " is in very wide terms and is likely to be misused, and since there are no guide' lines in the matter, the auhority can pick and choose the institution of his choice and put that institution into humiliation by making a show of an enquiry. In this connection he drew my attention to S. 65 of the Act under which the Registrar is conferred with powers to inspect books of a Co-operative Society. He submits that the powers conferred herein are more circumscribed and were required to be used in accordance with the guide lines contained therein-S. 65, but whereas no such guide lines or conditions are available in sub-sec. (1) of S. 64. He made a further submission that if the 1st respondent's apprehension was that no proper accounts had been maintained or that funds had not been properly used or that proper identification of big and marginal farmers had not been done he could have proceeded under S. 65 instead of invoking this general supervisory power. But S. 64 covers a wider field and, having regard to the nature of the enquiry sought to be made under Annexure A, S. 64 has rightly been preferred to Sec. 65. In support of his argument that S. 64 (1) was violative of Art. 14 the Counsel places reliance of Hamdard Dawakkana v. Union of India (AIR. 1969 SC. 554), satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, Asst. Passport Officer, New delhi (AIR. 1967 SC. 1836) and puttappa v. State of Karnataka (1978) 1. Kar. L. J. 302 and further on the observations of the learned Author Durga Das Basu in his book 'shorter Constitution of India' (8th edn) at page-39 last paragraph. ( 4 ) THE two questions that arise for consideration are: (1) Is S. 64 (1) of the Act unconstitutional being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution? and (2) Is Annexure-A bad-in law? ( 5 ) ANNEXURE-A issued by the 1st respondent, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, acting under S. 64 (l) of the Act, reads thus:"office of the Assistant Registrar of co-op. Societiess Indi Sub-Dn. , Indi. NO. GI/misc/ indi: Dt. and (2) Is Annexure-A bad-in law? ( 5 ) ANNEXURE-A issued by the 1st respondent, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, acting under S. 64 (l) of the Act, reads thus:"office of the Assistant Registrar of co-op. Societiess Indi Sub-Dn. , Indi. NO. GI/misc/ indi: Dt. 28-31933 loan/enq/82-83 subject: Regarding mis-utilisation of ird loan by the Society or nad B. K. V. M. P. Ltd. . Taluka Indi. Reference: D. O. letter No. ODP|coop| inspection/65/82 - 83 dt. 26-3-83 Of the C. E. O. , Indi. . Preamble: During the course of the visit of Co-operative Extension officer indi, and Project Evaluation Officer, drds, Bijapur, and B. D. O. , Indi to nad B. K. V. M. P. Society Ltd, Talukt Indi for verification of utilisation ird loan, it was suspected that, a huge amount sanctioned to the loanees of the Society does not appear to have reached the bonafide loanees, and as such it is felt necessary to have a detailed enquiry under S. 64 of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Hence the following order in view of the circumstances stated above and in exercise of the powers vested in me under provisions of S. 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959,1, Sri. N. Shivaramu, the assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Indi Sub-division, Indi, District bijapur, do hereby order an enof Nad B. K. V. M. P. Society Ltd. , taluka, Indi, and to appoint Sri. M. B. Kadkol the Co-operative Extension officer, Indi-II, attached to the Block development Officer, Indi, to conduct the enquiry on the following points: (1) Whether advancement of loan to the members is bogus and against the loan policy and confirmation of loan from the loanees is essential? (2) Whether Input subsidy of Rs. 2. 5 lakhs has misutilised and it has been paid to big farmers who are not eligible to get this benefit? (3) Whether identification of small and marginal farmers are made by the competent authority correctly or not? the Inquiry Officer should complete the enquiry on or before 20th April, 1983 and detailed enquiry report should be submitted by 22nd of April, 1983. Given under my hand seal this the 28th day of March, 1983. Sd. (N. Shivaramu) asst. Regr. of Co-op. Societies, Ind. . . . . . " ( 6 ) I have extracted above S. 64 in full for the reason that sub-sec. Given under my hand seal this the 28th day of March, 1983. Sd. (N. Shivaramu) asst. Regr. of Co-op. Societies, Ind. . . . . . " ( 6 ) I have extracted above S. 64 in full for the reason that sub-sec. (2) (3) and (4) of that provision would be relevant while appreciating the argument of the Counsel for the petitioner that sub-Sec. (1) of that Section is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) SS. 63 to 75 are in Chapter VIII of the Act which deals with inquiries, inspection, surcharge and auditing of societies. The power to act. un- der those provisions are conferred on the authorities constituted under the act. A Society, like the one with which we are dealing, formed as it is under the provisions of this law, is bound by these regulations. The regulations are indeed well intentioned. Promotion of self-help and Co-operation being the main objective behind this law the law makes have taken enough precaution to prevent undesirable elements taking advantage of their offices for personal gain and thus causing loss to the funds and properties of societies. It is with this object in view periodical audit is provided for and power is conferred on statutory authorities to inspect, to inquire, and if need be, to surcharge those responsible who cause such loss to Societies. ( 8 ) BUT, as noted above, the attack to sub-sec. (1) of S. 64 is that it is highly arbitrary and confers unbridled powers on the concerned authority in the matter. ( 9 ) IT is not correct to say that the Registrar has been conferred with very arbitrary powers under S. 64 of the act. No doubt he can suo motu initiate an enquiry but that should confine to "matter specified in his order touching the constitution, working and financial condition's of the society. After holding such an enquiry he can take steps to call a general body meeting of the society to determine such matters as may be directed by him as provided under S. 64 (3) (c) or may direct a society or its officers to take such action or steps to remedy the defects, if any, noticed in the enquiry as provided in S. 68 of the Act. The enquiry may also result, in an appropriate case, in surcharging the committee or any member of the committee or any person found having caused loss to the Society. Sub-sec. (4) of S. 64 makes it obligatory on the part of the registrar to communicate the result of his enquiry to the society concerned. At every stage the Society and its officials will have an opportunity to explain their conduct in the management of the Society and its funds. Any direction given by the Registrar, as provided under S. 68 of the Act on the basis of the findings of the enquiry under S. 64, is appealable under S. 106. So also any order surcharging the society under S. 69 is appealable under S. 105 of the Act. The law provides for a further revision also. ( 10 ) A statutory authority called cane Commissioner had been invested with discretionary powers in the matter of reserving cane growing areas and also in the matter of his management and supervision of the canegrowers' Co-operative Societies) under the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act (24 of 1953) and the Rules made thereunder. The relevant provisions conferring such powers on the Cane Commissioner were challenged on the ground that they were highly arbitrary and were violative of Art. 14. It may be noted that any order made by him, exercising his supervisory powers, were subject "to an appeal. Taking this fact into consideration the Supreme Court observes in Tika Ramji v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (A. I. R. 1956 S. C. , 676) at page 708 as follows:"the same is the position in regard to the orders made by the Cane commissioer in the course of his management and supervision of the canegrowers' Co-operative Societies and any order made by him in regard thereto is subject to an appeal to the State Government at the instance of the party aggrieved (vide r. 63 ). If this is the position, it cannot be urged that wide powers are. conferred on the Cane Commissioner which can be used by him in a discriminatory manner so as to violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 14. If this is the position, it cannot be urged that wide powers are. conferred on the Cane Commissioner which can be used by him in a discriminatory manner so as to violate the fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 14. Any cane-grower or a Canegrowers' Co-operative Society or the occupier of a factory can, if aggrieved, take an appeal to the State government against any order passed by the Cane Commissioner and such provision is a sufficient safeguard provided in the Act and the Rules against any arbitrary exercise of those powers by the Cane, Commissioner and takes them out of the ban of Art. 14". Their Lordships observe that a provision for an appeal was a safeguard enough against any discriminatory action by the Cane Commissioner. ( 11 ) UNDER the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 S. 58 conferred powers on the gold Control Officer to enter and search any business premises and to seize the articles kept coontrary to law. Sub-Sec. (1) of S. 58 was attacked on the ground that it has conferred unguided arbitrary 'powers on the gold Control Officer. In this connection in Badri Prasad v. Collector, central Excise (A. I. R. 1971 S. C. , 1170) at para-25 the Supreme Court observes as follows:"it is true that the usual safeguards under the Code of Criminal procedure are not be found in this Act except those contained in Ss. 102 and 103 of the Code. But that by itself would not be enough to strike down the provision in S. 58. There may be cases where it is necessary for the gold Control Officer to act with expedition in the matter of search so that the information that he is going to search a premises may not leak out and the only safety in this regard is that the Gold Control Officer must be authorised by the Administrator in this behalf and he in his turn if he is empowered by the Central Government may authories other Government Officers to enter and search the premises ". ( 12 ) APART from there being adequate safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power under sub-sec. (1) of S. 64, as already stated, there are also enough guidlines in that provision. ( 12 ) APART from there being adequate safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power under sub-sec. (1) of S. 64, as already stated, there are also enough guidlines in that provision. It is clear from the words "an enquiry into any matter specified in the order touching the Constitution, working and financial condition of a co-operative society" that before initiating an enquiry he, must reduce into writing on what matter he proposes that enquiry to concentrate. That matter should be one touching the Constitution, working and financial condition. I am, in the circumstances, of the view that it cannot be said that the Registrar has been conferred with arbitrary powers without any guidelines and therefore that proision violates Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 13 ) SECTION 3 (d) of the Drugs and Magic remedies ( (Objectionable advertisements) Act, 1954, prohibit- persons from taking any part in the pulbication of any advertisement referring to any drug in terms -which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that drug for a diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any venerel disease or any other disease or condition which may be specified in rules made under this act (underlining supplied in italic ). Thus, power had been delegated to the executive to specify the diseases and conditions as given in S. 3 (d ). This was challenged in Hamdard Dawakhana's case. . (1) Observing that the power those delegated to the executive was uncanalised and uncontrolled and was thus ultra vires the supreme Court stated as follows:"the words 'or any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules made under this Act' s. 3 (d) of the Act are vague. They confer uncanalised and uncontrolled power to the executive. Parliament has established no criteria, no standards and has not prescribed any principle on which a particular disease or condition is to be specified in the Schedule. The power of specifying diseases and conditions as given in S. 3 (d) must therefore be going beyond permissible boundaries of valid delegation. The clause is therefore ultra vires. As a consequence the schedule to the rules also must be struck down. But their being taken out of cl. (d) of S. 3 does not affect the constitutionality of the rest of the clause or section as they are severable". The clause is therefore ultra vires. As a consequence the schedule to the rules also must be struck down. But their being taken out of cl. (d) of S. 3 does not affect the constitutionality of the rest of the clause or section as they are severable". (Head note-h) it may be noted that power had been conferred under law to the delegate. That authority had to make rules and regulations filling in the details to carry out and subserve the purposes of that law. It was too wide a term and it was also vague. There were no guide lines. The discretion vested in that authority-the delegatecould have operated in a very wide field. It was in that context the court observed that that provision was ultra vires. Whereas the facts in the instant case are entirely different. In this case the Act itself idlcates under what circumstances and for what purpose that power should be used. The legislature, having laid down broad principles of its policy in the legislation, has left the statutory authority with the discretion to Act within the boundaries specified by it. ( 14 ) THE other case on which reliance was placed by the Counsel for the petitioner was Satwant Singh's case (2 ). Satwant Singh Sawhney, a citizen of India had been directed, by the authority concerned, to surrender his passport. He had challenged their powers contending, inter alia, that their actions had infringed his fundamentalrights under articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The executive action, in so far as the power they had exercised, had not emanated from any law. It was just an executive discretion. It was In that context the Supreme Court observed thus :' One of the aspects of rule of law is that every executive action, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, must be supported by some legislative authority. Secondly, such a law would be void if it discriminates or enables an authority to discriminate between the persons without just classifica- tion. What a legislature could not do, the executive could not obviously do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What a legislature could not do, the executive could not obviously do. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . While in the case of enacted law one knows where he stands, in the case of unchannelled arbitary discretion, discrimination is writ large on the face of it. Such a discretion patently violates the rine of equality, for the difference in the treatment of person rests solely on the arbitrary selection of the executive". That is not the case here as already stated. The facts and circumstances in the two cases are different. The ratio enunciated in Satwant Singh sawhney's case case cannot be relied upon to challenge the provision in question. ( 15 ) IN Putiappa'scase (3) Section 14a of the Act had been challenged on the ground that it infringed Art. 14 of the constitution of India. While challenging Section 64 (1) of the Act as violative of At. 14 Counsel cannot place reliance on this authority. It may be noted that Section 14 A conferred powers on the Registrar of' directing amalgamation, division and reorganisation of societies if he "is satisfied that it is essential in public interest or in the interest of co-operative movement or for the purpose of securing proper management of any co-operative Society. . . . . . . . . . . . ". It was contended that powers thus conferred on him allowed him to Act arbitrarily and therefore offended Art. 14 of the constitution. Taking Into consideration the words used in that provision this Court observed in Puttappa's case that that Section did lay down the policy and also provided safeguards in the matter. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above i am unable to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that sub- sec. (1) of Section 64 of the Act is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 17 ) THE challenge to Annexure-A is on the ground that having been issued under Section 64 (1), a void provision, it was bad in law. (1) of Section 64 of the Act is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 17 ) THE challenge to Annexure-A is on the ground that having been issued under Section 64 (1), a void provision, it was bad in law. As I have held that Section 64 (1) cannot be challenged, as is being contended by the petitioner, the challenge to annexure-A cannot, on that ground, be countenanced. ( 18 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons there being no merit in this petition, not issuing Rule, the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .