J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) ). The challenge in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is against the order dt. 29-11-1982 passed under Section 86 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961 (Act) by respondent No. 1-Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies (Marketing) Gujarat State against the petitioner. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner-Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited respondent 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 1960. ( 3 ) ). Before the impugned order at Annexure A was passed the first respondent had issued show cause notice dt. 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 dt. 4th December 1981 pursuance to the said show cause notice. ( 4 ) ). The Board of Directors of the petitioner-society consists of elected representatives of marketing and processing co-operative societies of Gujarat State Co-operative Bank Limited District Central Co-operative Bank Gujarat State Co-operative Consumers Federation Limited Gujarat State Oil Industries Limited and also Government nominees. Out of the Government nominees two officers 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 meetings of the Board of Directors of the: petitioner-society and he had attended most of the meetings of the Board of Directors held during the years 1979-80 1980 The first respondent has become Joint Registrar since last about four to five years and prior thereto he was working as Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies Gujarat State. He had 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 unanimous decisions and hardly except on one or two occassions the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He had 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 unanimous decisions and hardly except on one or two occassions 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 Directors 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 had voted against any of the aforesaid items. It is also emphasized that the balancesheet 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 had to employ various vehicles and one of the allegations made by the respondent No. 1 in the 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 was 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. One of the main grounds is that the first respondent who was 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 petitionersociety 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 lime he 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 omission 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 petitionersociety and the impugned order directing inquiry would mean that the respondent No. 1 will be acting as a judge in his own cause. ( 10 ) ). Unfortunately respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply. Thus the petition has remained uncontroverted. ( 11 ) ). Learned Advocate for the so petitioner-society has firstly contended that the impugned order of directing an inquiry under Section 86 (1) of the Act is illegal as it is violative of principles of natural justice and on principle no person can he a judge in his own cause. ( 12 ) ). It is a celebrated principles of law that no person can he a judge on his own cause. 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 or the petitioner society. He is the same person who has directed to initiate ail 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 judge on his own ca use has great force and is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 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 judge on his own ca use has great force and is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is a celebrated principle of law that one shall not be a judge on his own cause (memo debet sse judex propria cause) (sic.) 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 he a similar situat on the Division Bench of this court in Special Civil Application No. 865 of 1972 decided on November 15 1972 his allowed the petition quashing impugned order passed by the District Registrar. After having examined the ratio of the so decision of this court this court finds that the 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 of Section 86 of the Act can also he 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 Dt. 19-11-192 under Section 86 of the Act directing to initiate inquiry is quashed and set aside. Respondents are restrained filed taking any further action in pursuance of the said order. Accordingly this petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Rules is made absolute. .