K. S. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) AT the time of issuing Rule, an order was made that the writ petition would be heard on 31-8-93. However, there is no acknowledgment received regarding service of notice on first respondent and consequently i directed the government pleader to take notice. The main contest is between the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner is a registered society. It is aggrieved by the direction issued by the first respondent directing the petitioner to hold an election within 60 days after calling the general body meeting. There is also a direction that the copy of the resolution of the general body be sent along with the audited report and the list of members of the working committee to the office of the first respondent. The impugned order is dated 24-7-93. The said order refers to three documents: 1) a letter written by Sri p. p. muthanna on 1-4-93, 2) a notice issued by the first respondent on 24-7-93 and 3) a complaint lodged by 118 members on 24-3-93. The preamble to the order states that the period of the working committee was two years from the date of election and it expired on 24-2-92. As stated in the letter of p. p. muthanna, who was the president of the society, he sought an extension of the period on the ground that a community hall was being constructed and in the meanwhile election of a new committee will not be in the interest of the society. He sought permission for the extension of the period of the working committee. The preamble also refers to a complaint lodged by mr m. s. mandanna and 118 members and in that complaint it was stated that there are 2,500 members in the society and according to this complaint there should be an election to the working committee once in two years. The last general body meeting was held on 25-12- 90. Therefore, there should have been an election by 31-9-92 and these complainants had sought a special general body meeting as per the request dated 26-9-91. There was a special general body meeting on 24-1-93 in which the estimated cost of the community hall was sanctioned. The last general body meeting was held on 25-12- 90. Therefore, there should have been an election by 31-9-92 and these complainants had sought a special general body meeting as per the request dated 26-9-91. There was a special general body meeting on 24-1-93 in which the estimated cost of the community hall was sanctioned. These complainants had sought an entry in the proceedings book to the effect that there should be a general body meeting and the election of the working committee; there was a general body meeting on 28-3-93. The said meeting had to be abruptly closed due to certain infighting. The complainants also stated that the society has vast funds at its disposal. The complaints also complained against the resolution dated 24-1-93 and of 24-3-93. Thereafter the first respondent states that the continuation of the working committee beyond two years is illegal and consequently he proceeded to pass the order directing to hold election as already noted by him. It was contended by the petitioner that the first respondent was not competent to pass any order under Section 25 of the Karnataka societies Registration Act, 1960 ('the act* for short) because even on the admitted position requisite percentage of members of the society nor requisite percentage of governing body did not join in lodging the complaint under Section 25. The order made by the registrar was also not an order in a proceeding initiated suo motu by the registrar. It was further contended that the registrar did not issue any notice as per Rule 8. It is quite clear that under Section 25 (1), the proceeding can be initiated by the registrar on his own motion or he shall initiate proceedings on the application of the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than l/3rd of the members of the society. The enquiry may be held by him or by directing some other persons authorised by him to hold the enquiry. The enquiry is regarding constitution, working and financial condition of the society. The powers of registrar or the authorised person under Section 25 (1) are enumerated under sub-section (2 ). One of the powers is a power given to the registrar or the authorised person requiring the governing body of the society to call a general meeting to determine such matters as may be directedby him. Though Mr. The powers of registrar or the authorised person under Section 25 (1) are enumerated under sub-section (2 ). One of the powers is a power given to the registrar or the authorised person requiring the governing body of the society to call a general meeting to determine such matters as may be directedby him. Though Mr. Karanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the registrar has no power to direct the society to hold an election, it is not possible to accept this contention because n enquiry into the Constitution and working of the registered society would include the enquiry into the propriety of continuation by a working committee and the need to elect a new committee if the existing working committee functions contrary to the bye-laws of the society. Section 25 (2) (c) should be read so as to include a power in the registrar to direct the holding of the election to the general body if the occasion demands. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in his attack against the propriety of the initiation of the proceedings under Section 25 in the instant case. Admittedly the complainants were only a small fraction of the total strength of the society. Similarly, majority of the members of the governing body were not the complainants. Therefore the only other possibility is that the registrar should have acted on his own motion; but nowhere the registrar states that the proceedings were initiated on his own treating the complaint lodged with him as an information. This apart there is a procedural defect while making the order. In an enquiry under Section 25 the registrar shall have to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 8. As per Rule 8 (2) the notice is to be issued by the registrar specifying the date on which, place in which and the time at which, the matters in respect of which the enquiry will be held. The notice shall have to be issued to the society concerned. In the instant case the notice shall have to be issued to the petitioner giving the particulars stated in Rule 8 (2) so that the petitioner could have furnished its explanation in respect of the matters referred in the notice. Rule 8 (3) and (4) provide the other stages of the enquiry culminating in as per Rule 8 (5 ). In the instant case the notice shall have to be issued to the petitioner giving the particulars stated in Rule 8 (2) so that the petitioner could have furnished its explanation in respect of the matters referred in the notice. Rule 8 (3) and (4) provide the other stages of the enquiry culminating in as per Rule 8 (5 ). Before issuing the notice the registrar should be satisfied with the requirement of Section 25 (1 ). In other words there should have been a proper application either by the majority of the members of the governing body or of not less than l/3rd of the members of the society. If such an application is not there then if the registrar considers it a fit case to hold an enquiry, he must initiate action suo motu for which he must have some material before him. The principle applicable has been explained by a bench of this court in'a. s. kuppa raju v general secretary, raju kshatrias welfare association, 1990 (2) kar. Lj. 403 : ILR 1990 kar. 3721. There is also another decision reported in s. Sreenivasa rao v sub-registrar (headquarters), mysore, 1990 (2) kar. Lj. 258 : ILR 1990 kar. 3740, which points out the need to adhere strictly to the requirements of Section 25 (1) before initiating any enquiry. Mr a. k. subbaiah, learned counsel for the respondent-2, however contended that on the admitted facts the first respondent was justified in directing the society to hold the election. The question is whether the first respondent who is a statutory functionary could make an order without taking into consideration the Provisions of the act. When a power is to be exercised in a particular manner, the law is firmly established that, such a power should be exercised only as provided by law which has created the jurisdiction vide ramachandra keshav adke (dead) by l. rs. V govind joti chavare and others, AIR 1975 SC 915 , para 25. The means adopted should be as legal as the ultimate order made by the authority. In these circumstances it is not possible to sustain the impugned order. There is no material to indicate that a show cause notice under Rule 8 was issued to the petitioner society in the instant case. The means adopted should be as legal as the ultimate order made by the authority. In these circumstances it is not possible to sustain the impugned order. There is no material to indicate that a show cause notice under Rule 8 was issued to the petitioner society in the instant case. However, quashing of this order does not mean that first respondent is incompetent to take any action if the situation calls for. If the first respondent still is of the opinion that the action under Section 25 is necessary he may proceed afresh according to law and a proper decision shall be taken within 2 weeks from today as to whether an action is called for under Section 25 and if so, he shall proceed with the matter immediately and conclude the proceedings with utmost speed. In case an action is called for under Section 25 the proceedings shall be concluded within 4 weeks from that date. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. --- *** --- .