J. N. BHAT, J, J. ( 1 ) ). The challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Counstitution of India, an against the order dated 29/11/1982 passed under section 86 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (Act) by respondent No. 1 Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Marketing), gujarat State against the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation limited is one of the Apex level federal co-operative societies and its area of operation is in the entire Gujarat State. The petitioner-society has amongst its members about 95 co-operative societies. The petitioner-Society is one of the largest co-operative institutions and it represents lakhs of farmers in the state of Gujarat which is established in I960. ( 3 ) BEFORE the impugned order at Annexure-A was passed, the first respondent has issued show cause notice dated 10th November, 1981 calling upon the petitioner-Society to show cause as to why inquiry under Section 96 of the Act should not be instituted. The petitioner had also submitted its reply dated 4th December, 1981 pursuance to the said show cause notice. ( 4 ) THE Board of Directors of the petitioner-Society consists of elected representative of marketing and processing co-operative societies of Gujarat state Co-operative Bank Limited, District Central Co-operative Bank, Gujarat state Co-operative Consumer Federation Limited, Gujarat State Oil Industries limited and also Government nominees. Out of the Government nominees, two officer are the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, ahmedabad or his nominee and the Financial Advisor Agriculture, Forest and co-operation Department and two non-official Government nominees. ( 5 ) THE case of the petitioner is that the first respondent who is Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad attended most of the meettings of the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Society and he had attended most of the meetings to the Board of Directors held during the years 1979- 80, 1980-81. The first respondent he become Joint Registrar since last about four to five years and prior thereto he was working as Depputy Registrar of the co-operative Societies, Gujarat, State. He bad attended the meetings of the board of Directors of the petitioner-Society in his aforesaid both the capacities. The first respondent he become Joint Registrar since last about four to five years and prior thereto he was working as Depputy Registrar of the co-operative Societies, Gujarat, State. He bad attended the meetings of the board of Directors of the petitioner-Society in his aforesaid both the capacities. It is further averred that the Board of Directors have always taken unanimously decisions and hardly except on one or two occasions, the registrar of Co-operative Societies, Gujarat State or his nominee or Financial advisor or any other Government nominee, had never voted against the resolutions passed in the Board of Directors meetings. ( 6 ) IT is also the contention of the petitioner that the policy programme, balance-sheet and audited accounts are placed for consideration and approval of the Board of Director and at no point of time, the first respondent who used to attend most of the meetings of the Board of Directors and Financial Advisor and also other Government Nominees, the voted against any of the oforesaid items. It it also emphasized that the balance-sheet and audited accounts which reflect the financial position of the petitioner-Society are always unanimously approved by the Board of Directors. ( 7 ) THE petitioner-Society carries various business activities and deals with various, marketing projects and that too various member co-operative societies. Therefore, it has to employ a large fleet of staff It is the case of the petitioner that total number of employees when this petition was filed was about 750. The area of operation of the petitioner-Society is the entire State of gujarat. The main office of the petitioner-Society is at Ahmedabad and there are various branches. In short, it is contended that in order to co-ordinate and to effectively carry out various activities, the petitioner-Society has to employ, various vehicles and one of the allegations made by the respondent no. 1 in an inquiry is about irregularity in use or misuse of the vehicles ( 8 ) THE impugned order of initiation of holding inquiry on various charges against the petitioner-Society and its Directors is questioned on various counts and on different grounds- One of the main grounds is that the first respondent who waa a sitting Director of Board of Directors of the petitioner-Society and who was a party to the initiation of the matters decided by the board, has passed the impugned order of holding the inquiry. It is contended by the petitioner-Society that at no point of time, the respondent no. 1 had ever taken any objection to various decisions taken by the Board and at no point of time, be had ever raised any question regarding use and misuse of the vehicles of the petitioner-Society. ( 9 ) THE petitioner-Society has also averred that the first respondent-Joint registrar of Co-operative Societies who was party to the ommission and commission alleged in the impugned order of holding the inquiry, is not competent to pass such an order of making an inquiry. In that it is further submitted that he was a Member of the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Sociey and the impugned order direcing inquiry would mean that the respondent no. 1 will be acting as a judge in his own case. ( 10 ) UNFORTUNATELY, respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply. Thus, the petition had remained uncontroverted. ( 11 ) LEARNED advocate for the petitioner-Society has firstly contended that the impugned order of directing an inquiry under Section 86 (1) of the Act as it is violative of principles of natural justice and on principle, no person can be a judge in his own case. ( 12 ) IT is a celebrated principles of law that no person can be a judge on his own case. The uncontroverted position in the petition is that the respondent no. 1 was attending meetings of the Board of Directors and he had never voted against the decisions taken in the meetings of the Board of directors of the petitioner-Society. He is the same person who has directed to initiate an inquiry under Section 86 of the Act. ( 13 ) THE contention that the impugned decision of the respondent no. 1 directing initiation of the proceeding under Section 86 of the Act is illegal as the respondent no. 1 is incompetent as he has been acting as a judge on his own case, has great force and is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is a celebrates principle of law that one shall not be a judge on his own case (memo debet sse judex propria cause ). In the present petition, it is not disputed that the respondent no. It is a celebrates principle of law that one shall not be a judge on his own case (memo debet sse judex propria cause ). In the present petition, it is not disputed that the respondent no. 1 Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies (Marketing) was a sitting member of the Board of Directors of the petitioner-Society and he was attending meetings of the Board of directors as a nominee of the Registrar. ( 14 ) THE attention of this court is invited by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in a similar situation, the Division Bench of this Court in special Civil Application No 865 of 1972 decided on November 15, 1972, has allowed the petition, quashing impugned order passed by the District Registrar. After having examined the ratio of the decision of this court, this court finds that view taken by this court is very much re-enforced by that decision. ( 15 ) SINCE the petitioner-Society is entitled to succeed only on one ground, other various grounds challenged in this petition are not required to be examined. Learned Assistant Government Mr Desai has submitted that the inquiry under Section 86 of the Act can also be carried by other competent officers and therefore, suitable. observations may be made. It is for the competent authority to decide and pursue the relevant provisions of law under which the actions can be taken. ( 16 ) IN the facts and on the circumstances "of the case, this court is of the clear opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1 should be quashed Therefore, this petition is allowed, Impugned order. passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 29. 11. 1982 under Section. 86 of the Act directing to initiate inquiry is quashed and set aside Respondents are restrained from taking any further action in pursuance of the said order. Accordingly this petition is allowed, with no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute. Petition allow ed .