ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in ordering an inquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') vide Rc.No.4166/2010-D1, dated 11.10.2010, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner is a House Building Society. The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Kadapa, respondent No.2, has submitted his report, dated 06.10.2010, to respondent No.1, wherein he has pointed out that a sum of Rs.89,32,539/- was found as imbalance in between loan outstanding of loans at Housefed level and member level of the petitioner-Society. While submitting the said report, respondent No.2 has requested for instituting an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Placing reliance on the said report, respondent No.1 has ordered for inquiry into the affairs of the petitioner-Society by appointing respondent No.3 as Inquiry Officer. 3. At the hearing, Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of Section 51 of the Act, inasmuch as respondent No.1 has not exercised his suo motu power or that no requisite quorum for holding an inquiry was made either by 1/3rd of the Managing Committee Members or 1/5th of the total number of members of the Society. 4. Section 51 of the Act reads 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 the total number of members of the society, hold 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 of its information, within a period of one month from the communication of the inquiry report by the Registrar. 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 of 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 and the Rules made thereunder, the bye laws of a society and the action of the society in placing 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 that such action shall not be nullified even if the General Body of the Society passes a resolution negativing the findings of the 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." 5. A perusal of the impugned proceedings shows that respondent No.1 has exercised his power under Section 51 of the Act on the basis of the report of respondent No.2, who has also incidentally made a request for instituting an inquiry. Though respondent No.1 has not used the phrase "on his own motion", the purport of the impugned order clearly reveals that he has exercised the powers inhered in him to order for an inquiry on the basis of the report received by him. The mere absence of words that he was exercising power of his own motion or his placing reliance on the report of a subordinate officer would not detract the nature of the power from the one of suo motu exercise. 6. I am also unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no application of mind on the part of respondent No.1. The very fact that respondent No.1 has referred to the report shows that he was aware of its contents and satisfied that it was a deserving case for holding an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. 7. The very fact that respondent No.1 has referred to the report shows that he was aware of its contents and satisfied that it was a deserving case for holding an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mandava Laxmana Rao v. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Warangal District and others in support of his contention that no inquiry under Section 51 of the Act can be ordered at the instance of another agency. 8. I have carefully perused the said Judgment, which dealt with a case, wherein an inquiry was ordered on the direction given by the Minister for Cooperation. I am of the opinion that a direction given by a superior authority is different from a request coming from the subordinate officer while sending his report. While in the former case, the competent authority had no discretion, in the latter case, he is always vested with the power either to exercise his suo motu power or not to exercise such power. Therefore, this Judgment is not of any assistance to the petitioner. 9. One other reason for my disinclination to interfere with the matter is that by the impugned order, respondent No.1 has merely directed holding of an inquiry into the affairs of the Society. The petitioner is unable to plead, much less substantiate, that by such inquiry, the interests of the Society or its members would in any way be jeopardized. In the interests of cooperative movement, it is always desirable that whenever the alleged lapses are pointed out, inquiries are held so that the cooperative movement is sustained and corruption in the Societies is curbed. 10. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.33260 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.