JUDGMENT - MARLAPALLE B.H., J.:-Being aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner of sugar (respondent No. 3) in passing an order dated 6th October, 2003, under section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the Act, for short) directing a fresh inquiry on the basis of the report submitted under section 83 of the said Act and the order dated 29th December. 2003, passed by the Honourable Chief Minister holding the portfolio of Cabinet Minister for Co-operation as an Appellate Authority, in an appeal under section 152 of Act, this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. The petitioners are the 21 Members of the Board of Directors of respondent No. 5 Karkhana i.e. Gangapur Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The brief factual matrix, relevant for the present purpose could be stated as under : 2. On or about 3rd of April, 2001, the Chief Chemist of the respondent No. 5 Karkhana submitted a proposal before the Board of Directors for export of 50,000 bags of sugar and sought permission. On the same day the Board Resolved (Resolution No. 28) to proceed with export of the sugar and released an advertisement to the same effect as to invite tenders. On 11th April, 2001, an advertisement was released in one of the local newspapers (daily Sakhal Aurangabad) inviting tenders for the export of 50, 000 bags of sugar and the tenders were to be received by the factory on or before 15th of April, 2001. M/s. Laxmi Rath Sales Agency at Ahmedabad allegedly submitted tender on 13th April, 2001, and in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16th April, 2001, his tender was accepted vide Resolution No. 4 and it was decided to charge the rate of Rs. 10,800/- P.M.T. for the export of sugar. 3. In the meanwhile, the exporter had obtained an export permit on 10-4-2001 issued by the Regional Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Ahmedabad. On 25-4-2001, the Director of Sugar, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi issued an order directing the respondent No. 5 Karkhana to deliver and despatch 5000 metric tones of sugar to the exporter i.e. M/s. Laxmi Rath Sales Agency, Ahmedabad. An agreement was entered between the Karkhana and the exporter on 30-4-2001. The Karkhana agreed to sell to the exporter 5000 mt. On 25-4-2001, the Director of Sugar, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi issued an order directing the respondent No. 5 Karkhana to deliver and despatch 5000 metric tones of sugar to the exporter i.e. M/s. Laxmi Rath Sales Agency, Ahmedabad. An agreement was entered between the Karkhana and the exporter on 30-4-2001. The Karkhana agreed to sell to the exporter 5000 mt. of Indian white crystal sugar of the crop season 2000-2001 in 100 kg jute bags at the price of Rs. 10,800/- per metric tone at ex-factory. The total quantity under the agreement was to be lifted by the exporter from 19-5-2001, to 24-7-2001. However, he lifted only 30,330 quintals of sugar and remitted an amount of Rs. 3,46,68,000/- by the demand draft and cash of Rs. 1,89,4501/-. It appears that the exporter had remitted an amount of Rs. 25,78,344/- over and above the price of the sugar lifted by him and calculated at Rs. 3,27,56,400/-. This excess amount was perhaps towards the deposit against the payment of excise duty at the rate of Rs. 85/- per bag of one quintal (100 kgs). The sugar was not exported and the authorities concerned got the information that the entire sugar stock was sold in the domestic market. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar had instituted an inquiry under section 83 of the Act by his order dated 11-4-2002, and appointed Shri R.V. Chavan, Chartered Accountant as the Enquiry Officer. He submitted his report on 11-6-2002 and held that the sugar factory had suffered a loss of Rs. 71,27,550,/- on account of the fact that in the domestic market the sale price was Rs. 1,350/- per quintal and it was in fact sold by the Karkhana to the exporter at the rate of Rs. 1,080/- per quintal as the exporter did not export the sugar but sold it in the domestic market. 5. The order passed by the Commissioner of sugar on 11-4-2002 as well as the inquiry report dated 11-6-2002 submitted under section 83 of the Act came to be challenged by filing a revision application under section 154 of the Act before the State Government and when the initial stay order was refused to be continued Writ Petition No. 34 of 2003 came to be filed before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8-1 2003, without interfering in the impugned order of vacating the stay. 6. The said writ petition was disposed of on 8-1 2003, without interfering in the impugned order of vacating the stay. 6. The revision application came to be decided by the Honourable Chief Minister in his capacity as the Minister for Co-operation some times in February, 2003, by the following operative order : "The impugned order dated 11-4-2002 passed by the Commissioner of sugar and the inquiry report submitted thereunder by the Enquiry Officer of 11-6-2002 are hereby confirmed." 7. The Commissioner of sugar by his order dated 17-9-2002 directed further inquiry under section 88 of the Act and Shri B.B Mane, Chartered Accountant came to be appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The inquiry report was submitted on 22-5-2003, by Shri B.B. Mane. He held that in the transaction under investigation there was no loss caused to the respondent No. 5 Karkhana. 8. Being dissatisfied with this report submitted by Shri Mane, the Commissioner of sugar passed a fresh order on 6-10-2003 rejecting the report of Shri Mane and appointed respondent No. 4 Shri P.R. Girashe, who was, at the relevant time, holding the post of the Regional Joint Director (sugar) at Aurangabad. In the meanwhile, Writ Petition No. 4133 of 2003, came to be moved before this Court seeking further directions against the Commissioner of sugar under section 88 of the Act and also challenging the report submitted by Shri Mane. By then the Commissioner of sugar had passed a fresh order on 6-10-2003 and therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 17-10-2003. The order dated 6-10-2003, passed by the Commissioner Came to be challenged in a revision under section 154 of the Act. Writ Petition No. 4559 of 2003, came to be disposed of on 16-12-2003 directing that the said appeal be heard and decided on its own merits within a period of one month. The Honourable Chief Minister decided the appeal on 29-12-2003, and dismissed it. The order passed by the Commissioner of sugar on 6-10-2003 under section 88 of the Act was confirmed. It would be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the order: "The order dated 6-10-03 passed by the Commissioner under section 88 is hereby confirmed. The Honourable Chief Minister decided the appeal on 29-12-2003, and dismissed it. The order passed by the Commissioner of sugar on 6-10-2003 under section 88 of the Act was confirmed. It would be appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the order: "The order dated 6-10-03 passed by the Commissioner under section 88 is hereby confirmed. The appellants are at liberty to file appeal if they are aggrieved by the findings of the Authorised Officer in the fresh proceedings." The order dated 6-10-2003, passed by the Commissioner of sugar under section 88 of the Act and the order dated 29-12-2003 dismissing the appeal thereon are subject-matter of challenge in this writ petition. 9. Though the writ petition is claimed to have been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the substantive prayer reads thus: "Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6-10-02 passed by the respondent No. 3 Commissioner of Sugar directing fresh inquiry under section 88 against the petitioners and confirmed by the State Government in Revision No. A.P.P/1303/C.R.674/15-C by order dated 29-12-2003, and for that purpose issue necessary orders." Thus, the prayer made by the petitioners is for quashing and setting aside the orders passed under the Act. Hence, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner No. 1 was holding the office of Chairman of Board of Directors and other petitioners were the members of the Board of Directors of the said Karkhana duly elected under the Act. They were responsible for the management of the said factory under the Act. No prayer is made for the issuance of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution or no allegation has been made for breach of any fundamental right. 10. The only question that requires consideration in this petition is whether the Commissioner of sugar has powers to order a fresh inquiry under section 88 of the Act by rejecting the first inquiry report submitted by the person authorised by the Commissioner himself. Some intervenors also appeared but their applications for intervantion remained on file and therefore, they were heard. The intervenors have supported the action of the Commissioner and thus, opposed the petition, whereas, the Karkhana has supported the writ petition. They have alleged that even the amount deposited by the exporter at the rate of Rs. Some intervenors also appeared but their applications for intervantion remained on file and therefore, they were heard. The intervenors have supported the action of the Commissioner and thus, opposed the petition, whereas, the Karkhana has supported the writ petition. They have alleged that even the amount deposited by the exporter at the rate of Rs. 85/- per bag was not remitted by the management to the Excise Department and therefore, the stocks of sugar worth about one crore came to be attached by the said Department thereby causing loss to cane suppliers. 11. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of sections 83(1) and 88 of the Act : "83. Inquiry by Registrar.-(1) The Registrar may of his own motion, and shall on the application of one third of the members of a society himself or by a person duly authorised by him in writing in this behalf, hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society." "88. Inquiry by Registrar.-(1) The Registrar may of his own motion, and shall on the application of one third of the members of a society himself or by a person duly authorised by him in writing in this behalf, hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society." "88. Powers of Registrar to assess damages against delinquent promoters, etc.-(1) Where, in the course of or as a result of an audit under section 81 or an inquiry under section 83 or an inspection under section 84 or the winding up of a society, the Registrar is satisfied on the basis of the report made by the auditor or the person authorised to make inquiry under section 83 or the person authorised to inspect the books under section 84 or the Liquidator under section 105 or otherwise that any person who has taken any part in the organisation or management of the society or any deceased, or past or present officer of the society has, within a period of five years prior to the date of commencement of such audit or date of order for inquiry, inspection or winding up, misapplied or retained, or become liable or accountable for, any money or property of society, or has been guilty of misfeasance or breach of trust in relation to the society, the Registrar or a person authorised by him in that behalf may frame charges against such person or persons, and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned and in the case of a deceased person to his representative who inherits his estate, to answer the charge, make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, with interest at such rate as the Registrar or the person authorised under this section may determine, or contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in regard to the misapplication, retention, misfeasance or breach of trust, as he may determine. (2) The Registrar or the person authorised under sub-section (1) in making an order under this section, may provide therein for the payment of the cost or any part thereof, as he thinks just and he may direct that such costs or any part thereof shall be recovered from the person against whom the order has been issued. (2) The Registrar or the person authorised under sub-section (1) in making an order under this section, may provide therein for the payment of the cost or any part thereof, as he thinks just and he may direct that such costs or any part thereof shall be recovered from the person against whom the order has been issued. (3) This section shall apply, notwithstanding that the at is one for which the person concerned may be criminally responsible." 12. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 83 of the Act have laid down the procedure for conducting the inquiry, whereas, sub-section (4) states that the result of any inquiry under section 83 shall be communicated to the society, whose affairs have been investigated while sub-section (5) states that it shall be competent for the Registrar to withdraw any inquiry from the officer to whom it is entrusted or to entrust it to any other person as he deems fit. There is no dispute that the term "Registrar" in the instant case would be the term "Commissioner of Sugar". As per section 87 of the Act the Registrar is required to take follow-up action for removal of the defects in the inquiry report under section 83 or an inspection made under section 84 of the Act discloses any defects in the Constitution working or financial conditions or the books of society, the Registrar may bring such defects to the notice of the society. The Registrar may also make an order directing the society or its officers to take such action as may be specified in the order to remedy the defects within the time specified therein. The society concerned may within sixty days from the date of any order made by the Registrar under the sub-section (1) may file an appeal to the State Government against such an order. The State Government may annul, reverse, modify or confirm the order of the Registrar. Section 88 empowers the Registrar to assess the damages against the delinquent promoters, etc. The State Government may annul, reverse, modify or confirm the order of the Registrar. Section 88 empowers the Registrar to assess the damages against the delinquent promoters, etc. This includes the person who have taken part in the administration or the management of the society or any deceased or part or present officer of the society and therefore, the members of the Managing Committee fall within the sweep of the Commissioners powers to order an inquiry against them under the said section for assessing the damages i.e. quantification of the loss caused to the society by each of them or individually or collectively as per the report submitted under section 83 of the Act. These damages can be directed to be recovered from the person or persons against whom the order has been issued. Sub-section (3) of section 88 further states that the inquiry could be ordered notwithstanding that the act is one for which the person concerned may be criminally responsible. Any criminal proceedings pending in respect of the damages so caused or alleged to have been caused by the members of the Committee will not come in the way of the Commissioner from initiating an inquiry under section 88 of the Act based on the Enquiry Officers report under section 83 of the Act. 13. It was contended by Shri R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that once the power under section 88 of the Act was invoked by the Commissioner vide his order dated 17-9-2002 by appointing Shri B.B. Mane, no further powers to appoint any other person by ignoring or setting-aside the report submitted by him. The Commissioner has usurped his powers under section 88 of the Act and in fact has acted without powers in passing the subsequent order dated 6-10-2003. By referring to the term "a person authorised by him in that behalf may frame charges" it was contended by Shri Dhorde that the person authorised by the Commissioner is only once and the language of sub-section (1) of section 88 does not contemplate multiplicity of the persons or multiplicity of inquiries to be directed under section 88. The powers once exercised under section 88(1) of the Act cannot be allowed to be exercised again notwithstanding the favourable or unfavourable reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer. The powers once exercised under section 88(1) of the Act cannot be allowed to be exercised again notwithstanding the favourable or unfavourable reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer. In support of these contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of (Deorao Vithoba Kale v. Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur and others)1, 1982 Mh.L.J. 543. It was also urged that the impugned order dated 6-10-2003 passed by the Commissioner amounts to review of his earlier order dated 17-9-2002 and when there are no express powers of review provided under section 88(1) of the Act, the Commissioner acted without powers and the lower Appellate Authority i.e. the Honourable Chief Minister confirmed the same order in disregard to the statutory scheme. The review powers are required to be provided specifically and it cannot be presumed that they are inherent powers available with a statutory authority. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of (Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji)2, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1273. 14. Shri C.K. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, while supporting the impugned orders, submitted that there is no specific bar under section 88(1) of the Act for re-ordering a fresh inquiry under section 88(1) of the Act. Unless there is such a bar it cannot be accepted that the Commissioner acted without powers. In the interests of sugarcane growers at large and the respondent Karkhana, in particular it was deemed necessary by the Commissioner to reject the report of Shri Mane more so because the said report is like an appellate order over the findings submitted under section 83 of the Act. So long as the Commissioner has given the reasons for disagreeing with the findings submitted by Shri Mane, the Commissioner was justified in issuing a fresh order for a de novo inquiry. Such an order should not be cryptic or without reasons. In the instant case, the order passed by the Commissioner has dealt with every finding recorded by Shri Mane and he has given his reasons to disagree with the findings of Shri Mane. Shri C.K. Shinde has referred to the order passed by the Honourable Chief Minister on 29-12-2003 and submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner on 6-10-2003 has been duly confirmed and for sound reasons. Shri C.K. Shinde has referred to the order passed by the Honourable Chief Minister on 29-12-2003 and submitted that the order passed by the Commissioner on 6-10-2003 has been duly confirmed and for sound reasons. It was further urged that the impugned order dated 6-10-2003 cannot be an order of review and it is an order of a de novo inquiry to assess the damages under section 88 based on the inquiry report submitted under section 83 which was confirmed by the Honourable Chief Minister while rejecting the revision application under section 154 of the Act. 15. A copy of the agreement dated 30-4-2001 signed between the respondent factory and the exporter i.e. M/s. Laxmi Rath Sales Agency, Ahmedabad, sets-out the detailed terms and conditions binding both the parties. There is no doubt that 5000 mt. of sugar covered by the agreement was to be exported in its entirety. If exported, excise duty was not leviable. Clauses 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the agreement are reproduced for ready reference as under: "7. The buyer shall not assign and/or transfer the benefits and rights under this agreement to any third person without prior consent of the Seller. After signing the contract, if the Government, on account of Export of Sugar declares any additional incentive, the benefits shall be to the factors account. 8. The sellers shall measure, weigh and mark the said goods at its factory in the presence of the authorised representative of the buyer and independent Inspection agency nominated by the buyer. 10. The buyer at its own costs with the co-ordination of the seller will arrange through their agents for the transportation and the delivery of the said goods from the sellers factory to the nearest loading point to be loaded in railway rakes for further transportation to the destination. In case of the shipment be sea from Mumbai or JNPT, the buyers representative/nominated agents in co-ordination with the sellers will arrange for transporters/through railway rakes for sending the goods to Mumbai-JNPT for shipment. 11. No brokerage/or commission charges shall be payable by the seller in respect of the sale of the said goods. 14. The Buyer shall obtain at its own costs charge insurance for the price of the said goods plus 10% in order to claim directly from the insurer, along with the insurance policy or other evidence of the insurance cover. 11. No brokerage/or commission charges shall be payable by the seller in respect of the sale of the said goods. 14. The Buyer shall obtain at its own costs charge insurance for the price of the said goods plus 10% in order to claim directly from the insurer, along with the insurance policy or other evidence of the insurance cover. The insurer shall be of good reputation and the insurance shall be in accordance with maximum cover of the charge clauses prescribed by the institute of underwriters. The declaration of the insurance shall be from the delivery of the said goods on board the truck at the sellers were house/premises upto the safe and sound loading of the goods in the ship-for export. 15. The Buyer shall at its own cost ship the goods in the ship despatch the documents relating to the said goods namely the contracts of affreighment, insurance policy, invoice, bills of lading, etc. to its bankers at the port of arrival. 16. If the said goods are not shipped by the buyer within the shipment period mentioned above, the seller shall not be held responsible for any expenses, loss, damages etc. incurred or suffered by the buyer. 17. It will be the responsibility of the buyer to obtain license for the import of the goods in the country of import and to pay all the custom duties, import duties and other charges for clearance of the said goods. Buyer shall submit the proof of export after the completion of shipment." A reading in totality of these terms and conditions would go to show that the operation of exporting the subject sugar-stock would be complete would when the exporter would furnish the details of the ship, challans, the date and name of the port, etc. to the sugar factory. This operation of export cannot be said to be completed as soon as the exporter collected sugar bags from the factory premises. It is also evident from the record that though the factory released an advertisement on 11-4-2001 the exporter had managed to get an export licence on the earlier date itself from the Joint Director, Ahmedabad. The resolution passed by the factory did not indicate that there were more than one tenders. The order issued by the Director (sugar). It is also evident from the record that though the factory released an advertisement on 11-4-2001 the exporter had managed to get an export licence on the earlier date itself from the Joint Director, Ahmedabad. The resolution passed by the factory did not indicate that there were more than one tenders. The order issued by the Director (sugar). New Delhi, on 25-4-2001 very explicitly expected the sugar factory to ensure that the sugar quota directed to be sold to the exporter was in fact exported. This release order came to be passed on the basis of the resolution passed by the Karkhana on 16-4-2001 accepting the sole tender of the exporter. The agreement dated 30-4-2001 signed by the parties also indicated that the exporter was required to furnish all the details of export of sugar to the factory. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the management of the Karkhana was not responsible once the sugar stock was lifted from its premises more so when the sugar stock exported was not leviable for any excise duty and the sugar was sold at a rate lower than the existing market rate. 16. When the Commissioner had appointed Shri Mane to conduct an inquiry under section 88 of the Act, he (Shri Mane) had no powers to sit in appeal over the inquiry report under section 83 of the Act and he was required to simply assess the liability for causing damages individually or collectively by the members of the Managing Committee. He could not have recorded a finding setting aside the inquiry report submitted under section 83 of the Act. In the instant case, the said report was accepted by the Commissioner by directing an enquiry under section 88 of the Act vide his order dated 17-9-2002 and subsequently it was confirmed by the revisional authority. The Commissioner was, therefore, justified in rejecting the report submitted by Shri Mane as he had acted contrary to the provisions of section 88 of the Act. 17. In his order dated 29-12-2003, the Honourable Chief Minister, while upholding the order passed by the Commissioner on 6-10-2003, observed thus : "A limited issue for my consideration in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Sugar is justified in discharging the earlier report of the Authorised Officer and instituting re-enquiry under section 88 of the Act. 17. In his order dated 29-12-2003, the Honourable Chief Minister, while upholding the order passed by the Commissioner on 6-10-2003, observed thus : "A limited issue for my consideration in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Sugar is justified in discharging the earlier report of the Authorised Officer and instituting re-enquiry under section 88 of the Act. On careful reading of the said provision of section 88, it is clear that there is no express provision of re-enquiry. The said provision also do not expressly prohibit re-enquiry. In the absence of any express provision in this regard, I proceed to consider this matter on its merits. It is not disputed that there was difference between the price of sugar supplied for export and the prevailing market price of sugar. Therefore, on the merits of the case the Commissioner of sugar was justified in issuing order of re-enquiry and initiating fresh proceedings under section 88 of the Act. I do not see any reason to interfere with the same. If the appellants are aggrieved by the findings of the Authorised Officer in the fresh proceedings, they are at liberty to come in appeal before this authority against his findings. I do not see any force in the arguments put forth on behalf of the appellants." The above-quoted observations do indicate that the lower Appellate Authority has duly considered the scheme of section 88 of the Act and noted that if the petitioners or any of them are aggrieved by the findings to be recorded in the de novo inquiry they are not remedyless. They have liberty to file an appeal under section 152 of the Act. The Honourable Chief Minister thus formed an opinion that it was necessary in the interests of the Karkhana as well as the sugar cane growers that a de novo inquiry as directed by the Commissioner under section 88 was expedient. In an appeal under section 152 of the Act, the Honourable Chief Minister has considered the reports i.e. report submitted under section 83 of the Act and the report under section 88 submitted by Shri Mane and also the reasoning given by the Commissioner in his order dated 6-10-2003 for rejecting the said report. The view taken by the Honourable Chief Minister, therefore, requires to be confirmed as it does not suffer from any infirmities. 18. The view taken by the Honourable Chief Minister, therefore, requires to be confirmed as it does not suffer from any infirmities. 18. Rule 71 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 (for short, Rules of 1961) deals with the procedure and the principles for conduct of an inquiry under section 83 or inspection under section 84 of the Act, whereas, the scheme of Rules 72 to 74 deals with the procedure and the actions to be taken thereafter regarding an inquiry under section 88 of the Act. On receipt of the report under section 83, the Registrar may himself or any other person authorised by him make such further inquiry as he may deem necessary regarding the extent to which the person who has taken any part in the organisation or management of a society has misapplied or retained or become liable or actionable for any money or property of the society or has committed misfeasance or breach of the trust in relation to the society. On completion of this inquiry under sub-rule (1), the Registrar, where necessary, shall issue a notice to the person or persons concerned furnishing him or them with particulars of the acts of misapplication, retention, misfeasance or breach of trust and the extent of his or their liability involved therein and calling upon him or them to put in statement in his or their defence within fifteen days of the date of issue of the notice. The Registrar or the person authorized by him would then if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for holding the person or persons liable, shall frame charges. The person or persons concerned shall, after the charges are framed be asked to put in his statement in defence and to indicate the documentary or oral evidence which he would like to produce. The Registrar or the person authorised by him may permit product of other documentary or oral evidence, if considered necessary subsequently. The Registrar or the authorised officer is required to record evidence led by the society or person charged and thereafter fix a date for hearing arguments of both the parties. The Registrar or the person authorised by him may permit product of other documentary or oral evidence, if considered necessary subsequently. The Registrar or the authorised officer is required to record evidence led by the society or person charged and thereafter fix a date for hearing arguments of both the parties. On the date so fixed the Enquiry Officer shall make his final order either ordering repayment of the money or return of the property to the society together with interest at such rate as may be specified by him or to contribute such amount to the assets of the society by way of compensation in regard to misapplication, retention, misfeasance or breach of trust as may be determined or may reject the claim submitted on behalf of the society. The Enquiry Officer may also provide in his order for the payment of cost of the proceedings and furnish a copy of the order to the party concerned within ten days. 19. The entire scheme of Rule 72 of the Rules of 1961 does not in any way contemplate setting-aside the report submitted under section 83 of the Act. On the contrary, the Enquiry Officer may record his findings in either quantifying the damages or holding that a particular member of the Committee is not liable for damages or he may reject the claim submitted on behalf of the society. The Enquiry Officer Shri Mane thus acted in utter disregard to the scheme of section 88 of the Act read with Rule 72 of the Rules. The Commissioner in his order dated 6-10-2003 has set-out a detailed reasoning in discarding the findings of Shri Mane on every charge and it is not a cryptic or whimsical order by any means. It is an order which sets-out sound reasons and has considered all the relevant aspects on the basis of the reports submitted under section 83 of the Act. 20. The power under section 88 of the Act is a power of supervision and control with the Registrar or the Commissioner so as to ensure that the society concerned is run and managed properly. The order of inquiry to be passed under section 83 of the Act is an administrative order though appealable. On the basis of said report, the Commissioner is required to take further steps as contemplated under section 88 of the Act. The order of inquiry to be passed under section 83 of the Act is an administrative order though appealable. On the basis of said report, the Commissioner is required to take further steps as contemplated under section 88 of the Act. If the inquiry ordered under section 88 of the Act for quantifying the damages is not found to be in order by the Commissioner as a controlling authority or supervisory authority he has implied powers to order a de novo inquiry so long as such an order sets-out the reasons. It is like a disciplinary authority rejecting the report submitted by the domestic Tribunal and ordering a de novo inquiry. No prejudice or harm is likely to be caused if de novo inquiry is ordered and in which again the procedure as set-out under Rule 72 of the Rules of 1961 to be followed is mandatory. Unless there is specific bar for initiating a de novo inquiry under section 88 of the Act it cannot be said that the Commissioner had acted without powers. In administrative, supervisory or controlling powers such a power ordering a de novo inquiry must be held to be implied so that the persons in charge of the affairs of the society are dealt with strictly within the frame work of law and for the welfare of the members. If such de novo inquiry initiated under section 88 of the Act is scuttled or interfered with by the authority/Court, unless for justifiable reasons, the interests of the society would be jeopardised. It appears that the Honourable Chief Minister was aware that it would be for the good health of the respondent Karkhana that a de novo inquiry is conducted and the quantum of damages, if any, is fixed against the petitioners or any of them. It is not the health of the society alone but in fact it is the interests of the sugar cane growers and the employees of the Karkhana that such an inquiry is expedient. The sugar factories will be in goodstead if the supervisory and the controlling authorities are allowed to perform their statutory functions under the Act and it seems that the State Government is inclined to allow the law to take its own course in such cases. The sugar factories will be in goodstead if the supervisory and the controlling authorities are allowed to perform their statutory functions under the Act and it seems that the State Government is inclined to allow the law to take its own course in such cases. It is not a review of his earlier order but on his due satisfaction the Commissioner did not accept the report submitted by Shri Mane and therefore, he has exercised supervisory powers to order a de novo inquiry. 21. In the premises the challenge to the impugned orders is devoid of merits and the writ petition must, therefore, fail. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim order stands vacated. Shri Bhavar, learned Advocate, has submitted an oral application for stay to this judgment and order for a period of two weeks. The oral application is hereby rejected. Respondent No. 4 Shri P.R. Girase, appointed as Enquiry Officer in the de novo inquiry has retired from the Government service since then and therefore, it would be necessary for the Commissioner of sugar to pass a fresh order, it necessary. This shall be done within one week from today so as to ensure that the fresh inquiry is completed as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months. 22. In view of the above judgment, civil applications are disposed of. Petition dismissed. -----