Markandey Katju, C.J: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. As indicated by us earlier, instead of deciding the writ appeal, which has been filed against the impugned interlocutory order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, we are taking up the writ petition itself for final hearing and disposal. 2. The writ petition has been filed by the respondent herein challenging the order dated 23.10.2003 passed by the appellant herein. The order dated 23.10.2003 reads as follows: "The Central Government in exercise of its powers under Sec.235(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, hereby orders investigation into the affairs of DSQ Software Limited and appoints Shri Sharad Krishnan Sharma, Advisor in Serious Fraud Investigation Office as Inspector to investigate the affairs of the company. The company is also directed to extend full co-operation to the Inspector in the completion of the investigation under Sec.235 of the Companies Act, 1956." 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/writ-petitioner is that the impugned order violates Sec.235(1) of the Companies Act, which reads as follows: "235(1) Investigation of the affairs of a company: The Central Government may, where a report has been made by the Registrar under Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.234, or under Sub-sec.(7) of that section, read with Sub-sec.(6) thereof, appoint one or more competent persons as inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report thereon in such manner as the Central Government may direct." It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner that there was no report by the Registrar of Companies on the basis of which, the Central Government could direct an investigation into the affairs of the respondent company. 4. However, in the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant/respondent, in paras.8 and 9, it has been averred as follows: "In reply to para.8 it is submitted that the petitioner’s contention that a report under Sec.234(6) and (7) has not been made to the Department is totally denied. The report of the Registrar of Companies was forwarded to the Regional Director, vide letter No.28331/PC-III/STA/Ins/2002 dated 9.9.2002 suggesting investigation into the affairs of the company under Sec.235(1) of the Companies Act as the company was having 97,000 share holders and large public interest was involved and as unsatisfactory state of affairs existed in terms of Sec.234(6) of the Companies Act in the company, thorough investigation in the matter as of utmost necessity. The views therein were also supported by the Regional Director, vide his letter No.13(29) of 2001 dated 1.10.2002, wherein he reiterated the fact that as public were holding about 97.57 % of the paid up share capital of the company, substantial public interest was involved. He further observed that inspection of the company’s affairs under Sec.209-A of the Act also revealed serious violations like 372-A, 295 and 211, etc. of the Companies Act. Serious irregularities were also noticed in the matter of transactions with overseas subsidiaries and associate companies and therefore the matter was recommended for investigation under Sec.235(1) of the Act. The investigation under Sec.235(1) had been entrusted to SFIO which is a multi-disciplinary agency as the case was within the guidelines prescribed by the department vide order No.5/21/2003 SFIO dated 17.9.2003. The O.M.No.F. No.5/21/2003 SFIO dated 17.9.2003 for finalising cases for investigation under Sec.235 to 247 of the Act is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. 9. The petitioner’s contention that notices under Sec.234 have not been issued to the company is also denied totally. The company’s balance sheet as at 31.12.2000 was scrutinised and the company was asked to furnish certain information and explanation in respect of certain matters, pursuant to the powers conferred on the Registrar of Companies under Sec.234(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 on 29.6.2001 vide letter No.28331/PC-III/BS/2000/STA/2001. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention is not tenable. The reference to Sec.235(2) of the Act in this context is irrelevant since the case dwells within the purview of Sec.235(1) of the Act." 5. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/writ-petitioner that there was no report of the Registrar of Companies on the basis of which investigation into the affairs of the respondent company could be directed by the appellant is factually incorrect. Learned counsel for the respondent/writ-petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851: (1978)1 S.C.C. 405 : (1978)2 S.C.R.. 272 : (1978)2 S.C.J. 441. In our opinion, the said decision is wholly distinguishable. In the present case, it is not necessary that the impugned order itself should mention that the report of the Registrar of Companies shall be taken into consideration. 6. 272 : (1978)2 S.C.J. 441. In our opinion, the said decision is wholly distinguishable. In the present case, it is not necessary that the impugned order itself should mention that the report of the Registrar of Companies shall be taken into consideration. 6. A careful reading of the provisions of Sec.235(1) of the Companies Act shows that what is required is a formal report by the Registrar of Companies on the basis of which the Central Government can direct an investigation into the affairs of a company and the section does not contemplate that the order ordering investigation into the affairs of the company should itself state that the order is being passed on the basis of a report of the Registrar of Companies. In the present case, there is a report of the Registrar of Companies on the basis of which the investigation was ordered, and, therefore, there is no question of violation of Sec.235(1) of the Companies Act. 7. There is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal is also dismissed. Connected W.A.M.P No.1148 of 2005 is closed.