R. RAMANUJAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Bhimavaram Co-operative Urban Bank limited (hereinafter referred to as "the bank")-is a Co-operative Society registered under the A. P. Co-operative Societies act, 1964. The [headquarters of the Bank are at Bhimavaram. It has branches at akkiveedu, Tanuku, Attili, Tadepalligudem, ganapavaram, Nidadvolu and jangareddygudem, all are situated in West godavari District. The Bank proposed to open three more new Branches in West godavari District and sought permission of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, for creation and filling up of certain posts in the categories of Assistant Secretary and manager, Accountants, Assistant accountants, Clerks, Peons. Considering that request, the Registrar of Co-operative societies by his proceedings in Rc. No. 21084/ 99 dated 27-5-1999 accorded necessary approval under Section 116-C of the Act. Thereafter the Bank proceeded to fill up 28 clerk-cum-Cashier posts by publishing; a notification in the Newspapers on 9-11-1999. As many as 637 candidates responded to that notification. A written test was conducted on 30-1-2000 and 196 candidates were selected for interview. The interview dates were fixed initially to 25th and 26th April, 2000, but, later on postponed to 29th and 30th April, 2000. ( 2 ) LIKEWISE, for filling up of the 12 posts of peon-cum-watch men, a notification calling for applications was affixed in the office premises of the Bank on 21-3-2000. In response to that, 153 persons have applied. Out of them, 132 persons, who are qualified, were called for interview on 1-5-2000. ( 3 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the district Collector, West Godavari District, 1st respondent herein, issued orders in his proceedings Roc. (Co-opn) No. l881 / 2000-F dated 26-4-2000, acting upon a complaint stated to have been given by one Sri p. V. Satyanarayana, a Member of the Bank, directing the Bank to stop the aforesaid proposed interviews until further orders, pending enquiry into the allegations levelled against the Managing Committee. A copy of that order was sent to the Registrar of co-operative Societies with a request to issue necessary directions to the bank under section 4 (2) of the Act. A copy of that order was also sent to the Divisional Co-operative officer, Bhimavaram. It appears that the 1st respondent also instructed the Joint registrar/district Co-operative Officer, 2nd respondent herein, to cause an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. A copy of that order was also sent to the Divisional Co-operative officer, Bhimavaram. It appears that the 1st respondent also instructed the Joint registrar/district Co-operative Officer, 2nd respondent herein, to cause an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Thereupon, the 2nd respond issued orders in his proceedings Roc (Co-opn) No. l881/2000-F, dated 27-4-2000 authorizing Sri m. Narasirnha Murthy, District Co-operative audit Officer, 3rd respondent herein, to conduct an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act into the affairs of the Bank with special reference to representation put in by sri P. V,saryanarayana, a Member of the bank, relating to appointment of staff in v and VII Cadre posts in the Bank. Having regard to the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, I feel it appropriate to extract here under the said order, in toto:"order: in the circumstances reported by Sri Paka venkata Satyanarayana, a Member of the Co-operative Urban Bank bhimavaram, in the letter read above, the Joint Registrar/district Coop. Officer, eluru by virtue of powers vested in him under the terms of G. O. Ms. No. 34, F and agl. (Co-op. IV) Department, dt. 16-1-1989 hereby orders an inquiry under Section 51 of the APCS Act 7 of 1964 into the affairs of Co-operative Urban Bank, bhimavaram with special reference to representation put in by Sri Paka venkata Satyanarayana, a Member of bhimavaram Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. , relating to appointments of staff cadre V and Cadre VII posts in Co-op. Urban bank, Bhimavaram and authorizes Sri m. Narasimha Murthy, District Co-op. Audit Officer, Eluru to conduct the inquiry. The inquiry officer shall submit the date of commencement of the said inquiry forthwith and shall complete by 20-5-2000 positively. The inquiry officer shall submit the inquiry report in triplicate to Divisional co-op. Officer, Bhimavaram under copy to this office direct. The Divisional co-op. Officer, Bhimavaram shall initiate action on the report duly submitting a detailed report offering remarks and action proposed thereon. The Divisional co-op. Officer, Bhimavaram shall furnish a copy to the Cooperative Urban Bank, bhimavaram for placing it before the general Body". ( 4 ) IN this Writ Petition, the Bank is challenging the validity of the aforesaid two orders. Officer, Bhimavaram shall initiate action on the report duly submitting a detailed report offering remarks and action proposed thereon. The Divisional co-op. Officer, Bhimavaram shall furnish a copy to the Cooperative Urban Bank, bhimavaram for placing it before the general Body". ( 4 ) IN this Writ Petition, the Bank is challenging the validity of the aforesaid two orders. ( 5 ) APPEARING for the Bank, the learned senior Counsel, Sri E. Manohar, contended that: (1) the 1st respondent was not appointed by the Government as a Registrar under section 3 (1) of the Act and, therefore, he has no jurisdiction or authority to stop the recruitment process; (2) the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to- issue any instructions to the 2nd respondent to cause an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, yet, the 2nd respondent acted to his dictates and ordered enquiry under section 51 of the Act without independently exercising his discretion; (3) enquiry under Section 51 of the Act can be ordered into the constitution, working and financial condition of the Society, at the behest of its members, only in cases where not less than l/5th of the total Members of the Society apply for such an enquiry. Overlooking this statutory requirement, enquiry in this case was ordered on the application of only one Member, i. e. , p. V. Satyanarayana, that too, with special reference to his representation; and (4) matters relating to the recruitment of staff by the Bank can never be the subject matter of an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. ( 6 ) SMT. B. Vijaya Laxmi, learned government Pleader for Co-operation, disputed each one of the aforesaid contentions. ( 7 ) SECTION 2 (n) of the Act, defines the registrar as:"the Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed under Section 3 (1) and includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the registrar under this Act are conferred". ( 8 ) SECTION 3 of the Act, which deals with appointment of Registrar and other persons for the purpose of the Act is as under:"3. Appointment of Registrar and other persons for the purpose of this Act: (1) there shall be appointed a Registrar of co-operative Societies for State and as many other persons as the Government think fit for purposes of this Act. Appointment of Registrar and other persons for the purpose of this Act: (1) there shall be appointed a Registrar of co-operative Societies for State and as many other persons as the Government think fit for purposes of this Act. (2) Every other person appointed under sub-section (1) shall exercise under the general superintendence of the Registrar, such powers of the Registrar, under the act as the Government may, from time to time, confer on him". From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that besides appointing a Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the state, the State Government may appoint as many other persons as it thinks fit as registrars for the purpose of the Act, and such persons appointed under sub-section (1) shall exercise their powers, as Registrars under the general superintendence of the registrar, which the Government may from time to time confer on them. ( 9 ) THE Government, in exercise of its powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act issued orders in G. O. Ms. No-34, food and Agriculture (Co-op. IV) department, dated 18-1-1989, appointing several Officers as Registrars for different types of Co-operative Societies for the purpose of certain provisions of the Act. ( 10 ) A perusal of the said G. O. , clearly shows that the District Collector is appointed as the Registrar only in relation to the District co-operative Central Banks, but not in relation to Cooperative Urban Banks, like the petitioner-Bank. For that class of societies, the Joint Registrars working as district Co-operative Officers are appointed as Registrars for the purpose of exercising powers hinder certain provisions of the Act enumerated therein. This fact is not in dispute and is fairly admitted by the learned government Pleader for Co-operation. It is, thus, clear that the 1st respondent is not the Registrar in relation to the petitioner bank. That being so, he cannot issue any directions to the Bank. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the proceedings Roc. No. 1881/2000-F dated 26-4-2000 directing the Bank to stop the interviews, that were proposed to be held from 28th April, 2000 onwards, is without jurisdiction. ( 11 ) AS already noted above, the 1st respondent is not the Registrar, who can exercise the powers of the Registrar, under the Act, relation to the Bank. No. 1881/2000-F dated 26-4-2000 directing the Bank to stop the interviews, that were proposed to be held from 28th April, 2000 onwards, is without jurisdiction. ( 11 ) AS already noted above, the 1st respondent is not the Registrar, who can exercise the powers of the Registrar, under the Act, relation to the Bank. Therefore, he cannot issue any instructions or directions to the 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry into the affairs of the Bank on the basis of the complaint stated to have been given by one of the Members of the Bank - Sri p. V. Satyanarayana. Yet, the 1st respondent instructed the 2nd respondent to do so. Following the said instructions, the 2nd respondent had ordered an enquiry under section 51 of the Act without independently exercising his discretion. At this juncture, it would be convenient to refer to Section 51 of the Act, which is as under: 51. Inquiry:- The Registrar, may of his own motion and shall, on the application of a society to which the society concerned is affiliated, or of not less than one third of the members of the committee, or of not less than one fifth of in the total number of members of the society, had an inquiry or direct some person authorized by him by an order in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society. Such inquiry shall be completed within a period of four months and the report of inquiry along with the findings of the Registrar thereon shall be communicated to the managing committee of the society. It shall be the responsibility of the managing committee to place the inquiry report before the general Body or Special General Body convened for the purpose for its information, within a period of one month from the communication of the inquiry report by the Registrar. The Registrar shall be competent to initiate action under the provisions of this Act, if the committee fails to take action as aforesaid: provided that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Rules made thereunder, the bye-laws of a society and the action of the society in placing the inquiry report along with the findings of the Registrar, the Registrar shall not be precluded from taking follow up action as may be required on the basis of inquiry report. Provided further such action shall not be nullified even if the General Body of the society passes a resolution negativing the findings of inquiry: provided also that the Registrar may for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the period of four months for completion of inquiry for a further period not exceeding two months. Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "managing Committee" includes a Committee constituted under Section 31 (1) (a), and a person-in-charge appointed under Section 32 (7) (a) and also a special officer appointed under section 34 of the Act". A close reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Registrar, either on his own motion or on an application of not less than one fifth of the total number of members of the Society, can hold an enquiry or direct some person authorized by him to conduct such an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a Society. ( 12 ) IT is now fairly well settled that depositary of statutory powers shall exercise those powers independently, without being influenced by any extraneous authority (See: commissioner of Police V. Gordhan Das bhanji - (1952) SCR 135 ). In the case on hand, the order of the 2nd respondent, which is extracted here in above, would itself clearly show that the 2nd respondent has not independently exercised his discretion in making that order, but merely acted to the dictates of the 1st respondent. This would be further clear from counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. In para 6 of the counter affidavit he clearly admitted thus:". . . . . . IT is humbly submitted that the contents of the petition put in by Sri paka Venkata Satyanarayana are of serious nature and requires immediate probe in depth. Therefore, the Collector, w. G. Dist, Eluru has instructed the Joint registrar/dist. Co-op. Officer to conduct enquiry into the affairs of the Bank. Thereupon the Joint Registrar/dist. Coop. Officer ordered an inquiry under section 51 of the A. P. C. S. Act 7 of 1964, vide his Proceedings Roc. (Co-opn) no. 1881/2000-F, dt. 27-4-2000. The Dist co-op. Audit Officer, W. G. District, Eluru was appointed as inquiry officer. The inquiry officer commenced the inquiry on 1-5-2000". Thereupon the Joint Registrar/dist. Coop. Officer ordered an inquiry under section 51 of the A. P. C. S. Act 7 of 1964, vide his Proceedings Roc. (Co-opn) no. 1881/2000-F, dt. 27-4-2000. The Dist co-op. Audit Officer, W. G. District, Eluru was appointed as inquiry officer. The inquiry officer commenced the inquiry on 1-5-2000". ( 13 ) IN, my considered view the impugned order dated 27-4-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar is liable to set aside on this ground alone. In this view of the matter, I am not proposing to consider the third and fourth contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Bank. ( 14 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the writ Petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. A Writ of Mandamus shall issue declaring the Proceedings in Roc. (Co-opn) no. 1881/2000-F, dated 26-4-2000 issued by the 1st respondent-District Collector and the consequential Proceedings in Roc. (Co-opn) No. 1881/2000-F, dated 27-4-2000 issued by the 2nd respondent Joint Registrar district Co-operative Officer, as illegal and void. No costs.