JUDGMENT 1. - In view of the controversy that has been advanced before us, we intend to dispose of the appeal finally at this stage. 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, the Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions in assailing the order of the Single Judge dated 22.09.2006: (i) That the order of the Single Judge is non-speaking order. In this connection, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. 2006 Indlaw SC 533 ; (ii) That it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur to hear the appellant before the order dated 09.06.2005 came to be passed. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy, (2005) II LLJ 461 SC : (2005) 6 SCC 321 (iii) That the order dated 09.06.2005 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur is not in conformity with Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Rules, 2004 inasmuch as no specific points on which the enquiry is to be made have been formulated. (iv) That the complaints on a fair reading would show that they relate to the controversy concerning the management activity/election of the appellant association and such controversy has to be resolved through Conciliation and Arbitration as required under Section 16 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005. 3. Re: contention (i); the perusal of the order of the Single Judge dated 22.09.2006 shows that he was of the view that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies had power under Section 23 of the Act of 2005 to initiate inquiry on the complaints received by the Registrar. Though the order is not elaborate but at the same time the order cannot be said to be non-speaking. It is not that every brief order becomes non-speaking order. The reason in the order is reflected inasmuch as the Single Judge was satisfied that the Registrar possessed the power to initiate the inquiry under Section 23. 4. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, it was held thus: "A bare reading of the High Courts order shows that it did not mention that no other point except that relating to Rule 3.8 of the Manual was pressed into service. 4. In the case of Narinder Singh (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant, it was held thus: "A bare reading of the High Courts order shows that it did not mention that no other point except that relating to Rule 3.8 of the Manual was pressed into service. Had it been so, the grievance of the appellants would have been without any basis. But the High Court did not even refer to the various stands taken by the appellants. It was open to the High Court to discard the plea but to restrict consideration to one point and not to others was certainly not a permissible course. It may be, as contended by learned Counsel for the State, without any substance. But that should have been clearly indicated in the impugned order. 5. If certain points argued on behalf of the petitioner (appellant herein) were not considered by the Single Judge, the course open to the petitioner was to apply to the Single Judge for review of the order for non consideration of certain points which were pressed before him. This course was not adopted. In any case there is lot of difference between a non-speaking order and an order where certain points were pressed and not considered. In the present fact situation, we find that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh has no application. We, accordingly, overrule the first contention of the Counsel for the appellant. 6. Re: contention (ii); The Counsel for the appellant urged that it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to hear the appellant before he passed the order dated 09.06.2005 as according to him the said order entails civil consequences. 7. Section 22 of the Act provides for ground for disqualification. It reads thus: "22. 6. Re: contention (ii); The Counsel for the appellant urged that it was incumbent upon the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to hear the appellant before he passed the order dated 09.06.2005 as according to him the said order entails civil consequences. 7. Section 22 of the Act provides for ground for disqualification. It reads thus: "22. Grounds for Disqualification.-(1) A Sports Association shall be liable to action on any of the following grounds: (a) if the Sports Association fails to maintain accounts and submit the same under Section 19 or fails to produce the same when called for inspection; (b) if the Sports Association fails to hold elections in accordance with its bye-laws, or, as the case may be, when enjoined by the provisions of Chapter VII; (c) if the Sports Association fails to carry out its obligations under Chapter VIII; (d) if the Sports Association or any of its Office Bearers or any other member of the Executive Body misappropriates the funds for his personal gains or mismanages the affairs of the Sports Association to give undue benefit to any other person; (e) if the Sports Association is disaffiliator under Section 21. (2) A State Level Sports Association may after giving opportunity of being heard, recommend to the Registrar that a District Level Sports Association affiliated to it may be disqualified if it- (a) does not follow the directions of the State Level Sports Association in the matter of conducting tournaments and flouts its Regulations: (b) does not pay the affiliation fee; (c) otherwise violates the provisions of its own registered bye-laws. 8. Section 23 empowers the Registrar to hold an inquiry: (a) On the request of a State Level Sports Association; or (b) On the request of not less than 1/ 10th of the total members of a Sports Association; or (c) On his own motion. Such inquiry may be held by the Registrar himself or by a person duly authorised by him. 9. Section 24 provides that after holding an inquiry, the Registrar, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected Sports Association may- (a) appoint an Ad hoc Executive Committee and cause to hold fresh elections of Executive Body within three months; and (b) in the case of misappropriation of funds, take action in accordance with law. 10. 9. Section 24 provides that after holding an inquiry, the Registrar, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected Sports Association may- (a) appoint an Ad hoc Executive Committee and cause to hold fresh elections of Executive Body within three months; and (b) in the case of misappropriation of funds, take action in accordance with law. 10. Sub-section (2) of Section 24 provides that no existing Office Bearer of a Sports Association which is disqualified under Sub-section (1) shall be permitted to contest elections of any Sports Association for a period of six years from the date of such disqualification. 11. The scheme of the provisions contained in Sections 22, 23 and 24 does not envisage giving of a notice while taking a decision for inquiry to be held under Section 23. It is only before an adverse order contemplated under Section 24 is to be passed, an opportunity of hearing to the affected Sports Association needs to be given. Even otherwise an order of Registrar to hold an inquiry by itself does not entail civil consequences. No adverse order can be read into an order whereby the Registrar directs an inquiry to be held under Section 23. 12. In Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy (supra), the Supreme Court expostulated the position that the principles of natural justice apply even to administrative orders involving civil consequences. There cannot be any quarrel to the authoritative proposition of law made by the Supreme Court. However, the question is: Does an order under Section 23 by the Registrar for holding an inquiry involves civil consequences? Our answer is in negative. Thus, we do not find any merit in the second contention of the Counsel for the petitioner as well. 13. Re: contention (iv); Before we take up contention (iii), we thought it fit to consider contention (iv). 14. Section 16 of the Act of 2005 provides for settlement of disputes. According to this provision, if any dispute arises touching the constitution, management activity, election or claim to affiliation of any Sports Association, such dispute is to be resolved through conciliation and arbitration. For this purpose the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended from time to time has been made applicable to the conciliation and arbitration proceedings. 15. Section 22 on the other hand provides for grounds for disqualification. For this purpose the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended from time to time has been made applicable to the conciliation and arbitration proceedings. 15. Section 22 on the other hand provides for grounds for disqualification. Section 22(1)(d), as quoted above, provides, inter alia, that an Sports Association is liable to action if such Association or any of its Office Bearers or any other member of the Executive Body mismanages the affairs of the Sports Association to give undue benefit to any other person. Having perused the complaints received by the Registrar that have been, placed on record alongwith the application (30429 dated 17.10.2006), it cannot be said that the complaints are not covered under Section 22(1)(d). This observation, by us, has become necessary since it was vehemently contended by the Counsel for the appellant that Section 22 is not attracted. We do not intend to deal with this aspect further, lest it may prejudice the case of the appellant in the inquiry. Suffice it to say that since the allegations imputed in the complaints are covered by Section 22(1)(d), the Registrar cannot be said to have no competence to hold an inquiry under Section 23. Sections 16 and 23 operate in different field. An inquiry into the mismanagement of the affairs of the association is permissible under Section 22(1)(d) as set out therein. Contention (iv), too, has no merit. 16. Re: contention (iii); Rule 8 of the Rules provides thus: "8. Procedure for conduct of an inquiry- (i) An order for conducting an inquiry under Section 23 shall, among other things, contain the following, namely: (a) name of the person authorised to conduct the enquiry; (b) name of the Sports Association whose affairs are to be enquired into; (c) specific point(s) on which the enquiry is to be made and the period within which the enquiry is to be completed and report is to be submitted to the Registrar; (d) any other matter relating to the enquiry. (2) A copy of an order for conducting an inquiry under Section 23 shall be supplied to the affiliating Association to which the Association in respect of which the enquiry is being conducted, is affiliated. (2) A copy of an order for conducting an inquiry under Section 23 shall be supplied to the affiliating Association to which the Association in respect of which the enquiry is being conducted, is affiliated. (3) If the inquiry cannot be completed within the time specified in the order referred to in sub-rule (1), the person conducting the enquiry shall submit an interim report stating the reasons for failure to complete the enquiry and the Registrar, if he is satisfied, grant such an extension of time for completion of the inquiry, as he may deem necessary; or he may withdraw the inquiry from the officer to whom it is entrusted and hold the enquiry either himself or entrust it to such other person as he deems fit. (4) On receipt of the order referred to in Sub-rule (1), the persons authorised to conduct the inquiry shall proceed to examine the relevant books of accounts and other documents in possession of the Sports Associations or any of its officers, employees, or members of the Association in regard to the transactions and the working of the Association as he deems necessary for the conduct of such inquiry. (5) The person authorised to conduct the inquiry shall submit his report to the Registrar on all the points mentioned in the order referred to in Sub-rule (1). The reports shall contains his findings and the reasons thereof, supported by such documentary or other evidence as recorded or obtained by him during the course of the inquiry. (6) After receiving the report, the Registrar shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the Association concerned which may also file a reply in writing. (7) The Registrar, if satisfied by reply given by the concerned Sports Association may pass order to file the notice or may call for the records of the Association for further satisfaction or impose disqualifications under the Ordinance. (8) If the Registrar passes an order imposing any disqualification provided under the Ordinance, he shall record the reasons for doing so. 17. It would, thus, be seen that an order for conducting an inquiry under Section 23, inter alia, must specify the points in respect of which the inquiry is to be made. (8) If the Registrar passes an order imposing any disqualification provided under the Ordinance, he shall record the reasons for doing so. 17. It would, thus, be seen that an order for conducting an inquiry under Section 23, inter alia, must specify the points in respect of which the inquiry is to be made. When we look at the order dated 09.06.2005 passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in exercise of his powers under Section 23(c), we find that the specific points for which the inquiry is to be held are not mentioned. Section 23 read with Rule 8 do not contemplate a roving and fishing inquiry to be held by the Registrar or his nominee. If any complaint is received by the Registrar with regard to the mismanagement of the affairs of a Sports Association, he has to apply his mind and if he forms an opinion that inquiry under Section 23 needs to be held, then he has to formulate the specific points in respect of which such inquiry is to be held. The order dated 09.06.2005 falls short of this legal requirement. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, Senior Counsel, confronted with this legal flaw in the order dated 09.06.2005 submitted, and, in our view fairly, that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies may formulate the specific points in respect of which the inquiry is to be held. 18. In what we have said above, we dispose of the appeal by the following order: (i) The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan shall have a re-look at the complaints received by him from various District Tennis Associations, reference of which has been made in the order dated 09.06.2005, and if he forms an opinion for holding an inquiry into the allegations made in the said complaints, he will pass a fresh order indicating therein the specific points in respect of which the inquiry is to be held. (ii) The order dated 09.06.2005 is, thus, rendered ineffective. 19. Needless to say that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies shall deal with the matter expeditiously.Appeal Dismissed of as Above. *******