Judgment : Petitioner in this petition is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Petitioner has sought for quashing the impugned notice dated 25th November, 2008 under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition. .2. The grievance of the petitioner-institute in the instant writ petition is that, it is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and was established in the year 1868 as a literary and scientific institute. It is a 140 years old Association and was formally registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and subsequently, under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The main objects of the petitioner-institute is to permit the literary, scientific and social improvement of all classes of the community, of both sexes, by means of a reading room, library, concerts and other entertainment and such other indoor and outdoor games and amusements and offers facilities for physical, intellectual and moral improvement. It is the case of petitioner that, the institute has been functioning within the parameter of the bye-laws of the said Society and in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and the .said institute is one of the premier and reputed institutes known for its excellence and the administration has got full transparency. When such being the case, the District Registrar of Societies, exercising his power under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, on the basis of the complaint given by few unscrupulous members of the institute regarding the functioning of the institute, without application of mind, has proceeded to appoint the Enquiry Officer, contrary to Section 25 of the Act, as referred above. Therefore, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent. 4. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the order impugned passed by respondent, appointing the Enquiry Officer is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 read with Rule 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961. 4. The principal submission canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is that, the order impugned passed by respondent, appointing the Enquiry Officer is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 read with Rule 8 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Rules, 1961. Further, he submitted that, no notice or opportunity of being heard has been provided to petitioner before proceeding to pass the impugned order, resulting in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. .5. After careful perusal of the grounds urged by petitioner and the order impugned, appointing the Enquiry Officer, it reveals that, the respondent, on the basis of the complaint given by some of the members regarding misappropriation of funds of the institute in respect of various items numbering from 1 to 16, and upon being satisfied that, prima facie, the allegations are serious in nature, has proceeded to appoint the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the reality or otherwise of the alleged allegations made against the petitioner-institute and to submit a report. The respondent, upon receipt of the complaint from some of the members of the institute, after critical evaluation of the said allegations made in the complaint, has specifically recorded a finding which read thus: .Language .6. The respondent, on being prima facie satisfied and convinced that, the allegations made are serious in nature and in order to find out the veracity or otherwise of the said grave allegations, has, in his wisdom, thought it fit to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, by invoking Section 25 of the Act, the said authority has appointed the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations made in the complaint and to submit the report within a period of one month. It is observed in the order impugned that, the allegations numbering 1 to 16 prima facie appear to be serious in nature and involves misappropriation of funds and therefore, thought that, the genuineness of the allegations would be known only after conducting suitable enquiry. Therefore, by exercising his power as envisaged under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, on the basis of the information-cum-complaint given by some of the members of the institute, has passed the impugned order, appointing .the Enquiry Officer under Section 25(2) of the Act to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner-institute. Therefore, by exercising his power as envisaged under Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, on the basis of the information-cum-complaint given by some of the members of the institute, has passed the impugned order, appointing .the Enquiry Officer under Section 25(2) of the Act to inquire into the allegations made against the petitioner-institute. I do not find any error or illegality or perversity as such committed by respondent in passing the impugned order nor I find any good grounds as such made out by petitioner to interfere in the order impugned. 7. The vehement submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner that, provision of Section 25 has not been complied with does not stand to any reason for the simple reason that, Section 25(1) of the Act is amply clear that the Registrar has every right to hold an enquiry on his own motion as also on complaints received from the members and does not disable the Registrar from exercising the suo motu. powers of directing an enquiry only because he has been approached by only few members of the Society. 8. The other submission of the learned Counsel for petitioner that, before conducting an enquiry, notice ought to have been issued to petitioner and the provision of Rule 8 of the Rules has been violated by respondent cannot also be accepted for the reason that, the compliance of the same, i.e., issuance of notice, etc., would arise once the enquiry begins. That stage has not yet commenced. Before the enquiry has begun, petitioner has rushed to this Court and presented the writ petition against the order, appointing an Enquiry Officer. It is worthwhile to know-how sub-rule (4) of Rule 8 begins. The very first line begins as "on the date fixed for the enquiry, or on such other date or dates to which the enquiry might be adjourned, the Registrar or the authorised person shall give the Society a oral hearing....". In the instant case, that date has not yet been fixed. It is only in the preliminary stage of appointment of an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations. Once the enquiry beings, the Enquiry Officer is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the statute. Therefore, it is not justifiable to interfere in the impugned order and hamper the enquiry proceedings, at this stage. 9. It is only in the preliminary stage of appointment of an Enquiry Officer to inquire into the allegations. Once the enquiry beings, the Enquiry Officer is bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the statute. Therefore, it is not justifiable to interfere in the impugned order and hamper the enquiry proceedings, at this stage. 9. Further, it is significant to note that, the alleged allegations numbering from 1 to 16 appear to be quite serious in nature and therefore, the respondent in order to find out the truthfulness or otherwise of the said allegations regarding misappropriation of funds of that magnitude, has rightly exercised his power and appointed the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by respondent is not warranted. 10. The reliance placed by learned Counsel for petitioner at paragraphs 6 and 8 of the judgment in the case of Kodava Samaj, Bangalore v District Registrar of Registration of Societies, Bangalore and Another 1993 (3) Kar. L.J. 407 : ILR 1993 Kar. 2715, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and is of no assistance to him in this petition, in view of the well-settled law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.S. Kupparaju v General Secretary, Raju Kshatriya Welfare Association and Others 1990 (2) Kar. L.J. 403 (DB), wherein it is held that: "when the Registrar acts suo motu or on his own upon whatever material available other than a complaint by members of the Society or the Governing Body without the requisite majority prescribed to him to exercise his power under Section 25(1) of the Act, he must do so only after due application of mind and disclosure of material upon which he is acting and that must be explicit in the order he is required to make. Such an order cannot be capricious or without proper examination and investigation of the material upon which he proposes to act lest such action becomes arbitrary". (emphasis supplied) Further, the Full Bench of this Court also, in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association, Bangalore v The District Registrar for Societies, Bangalore and Another 2001 (7) Kar. L.J. 1 (FB) : ILR 2001 Kar. (emphasis supplied) Further, the Full Bench of this Court also, in the case of Bangalore Grain Merchants Association, Bangalore v The District Registrar for Societies, Bangalore and Another 2001 (7) Kar. L.J. 1 (FB) : ILR 2001 Kar. 766 (FB), has held that: “the information forming the basis for exercise of suo motu power may come from any source including a single member of the Society. The exercise of such power by the Registrar cannot be controlled by the fact that the complaint is made by less than 1/3rd of the members. If the number of members petitioning to the Registrar is 1/3rd or more, as already discussed, the Registrar is bound and obliged to initiate an enquiry. He has no option but to act and direct the enquiry. But, if the number is less, the Registrar can very well-refrain from holding the enquiry, if he feels that the enquiry is not warranted". (emphasis supplied) In this instant case, the Registrar has formed a definite opinion that, the alleged allegations against petitioner are prima facie, appear to be serious in nature and therefore, proceeded to appoint the Enquiry Officer to go into the allegations made against the petitioner and to submit a report. Further, it is observed by the Full Bench in the aforesaid judgment that, the expression "on his own motion is synonymous to suo motu, which according to the dictionary means, "on ones own initiative". "Own motion" obviously implies application of mind and formation of ones own opinion. It does not matter how and from what source he gets information. The exercise of powers suo motu or on ones own motion cannot and ought not to be construed in a narrow sense and in a sense which defeats the salutary purpose of the provision. The Registrar, on a consideration of such facts, has to decide whether it is a fit case, warranting initiation of enquiry in the overall interests of the Society. In the case on hand, the respondent, upon receipt of complaint-cum-information, having been fully satisfied that, the allegations made against the petitioner appear to be prima facie serious in nature, thought it wise to order an enquiry to find out the truthfulness of the said alleged allegations. Therefore, petitioner cannot have any objection for the same and if at all, the allegations are found to be untrue, petitioner may even be exonerated. 11. Therefore, petitioner cannot have any objection for the same and if at all, the allegations are found to be untrue, petitioner may even be exonerated. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.