Judgment ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.—Counsel for the petitioners is heard and the petition is considered for final disposal having regard to the facts and circumstances. 2. The facts briefly narrated are: The petitioners were said to be members of the 1st respondent-Society, which is registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and that the membership was open exclusively to the employees of the Karnataka State Legislature Secretariat. The object of the society, inter alia, was to form layouts and allot sites to its members on the basis of seniority of the membership. It is the case of the petitioners, that the society has formed a layout in the First Stage of Laggere, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and has also distributed the sites. It has taken up formation of a layout in Sy. Nos. 4 to 8 of Gasthi Kempanhalli, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk as well as in other survey numbers in Kogilu Village and Sy. Nos. 32/P1, 3, 4 and 6 of Agrahara Village. It is the complaint of the petitioners, that the society has entered into an agreement for purchase of land and formation of layouts with M/s. Jayasurya Developers on 5.6.1994 and 20.6.2005 and have paid a sum of Rs. 52.70 crores without following the necessary procedures and that civic amenity sites which have been earmarked, have been illegally sold in Laggere layout, despite objections having been raised by the department in the audit report for the year 2006-2007 and there is no action taken by the society for compliance of such audit objections and it is the further complaint of the petitioners that allotment of sites is not based on seniority, as per the list prepared and approved by the departmental authorities and that there is illegal allotment of sites to members. In this regard, the procedures have been flouted and the rules have been overlooked, in the society proceeding to allot sites to its members out of turn. The bye-laws of the society have also been flouted. 3. The petitioners also point out several other infirmities and irregularities committed over the years by the society. In this regard, the procedures have been flouted and the rules have been overlooked, in the society proceeding to allot sites to its members out of turn. The bye-laws of the society have also been flouted. 3. The petitioners also point out several other infirmities and irregularities committed over the years by the society. The petitioners have made several representations and have brought to the attention of the competent authorities, namely, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Principal Secretary, Co-operation Department, as well as the Minister for Co-operation, by their representations, copies of which are marked at Annexures A to E. Apart from this, the petitioners have also brought to the attention of the Bangalore Development Authority, that sale of the sites are being registered against the norms of release of the sites in favour of its members. The petitioners contend that these irregularities are enabled on account of powerful and influential directors of the respondent-society who have played havoc with the valuable properties that have been allotted to the society for distribution to its members in accordance with the bye-laws and the norms prescribed. It is in this background, that a detailed complaint was lodged before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and material was placed before the authority, in order that action may be initiated. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has by a direction issued as on 4.3.2010 delegated the power of inquiry to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and has directed that the complaint filed by the petitioners also shall be taken into consideration for holding an inquiry under Section 64, against the alleged irregularities. In spite of such direction, the said Assistant Registrar has failed to comply and has ignored the complaint of the petitioners which throws up the possibility of the several irregularities which are alleged, being ignored and the guilty remaining free to perpetrate their illegal activities to the detriment of the petitioners and others similarly placed. It is in that background, that the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Muslim Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, reported in ILR 1990 Kant. It is in that background, that the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to place reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Muslim Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, reported in ILR 1990 Kant. 3705, to contend that it was mandatory for the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take cognizance of the complaint and hold an inquiry with reference to the same. It is apparent that the Assistant Registrar, who has been delegated with the power of inquiry has pointedly ignored the complaint and pursuant to the complaint the petitioners are yet to be summoned to place their submission before the inquiry and therefore, there is non-compliance and reliance is also placed on the judgment to hold, that even a single complaint was enough to make the Registrar to hold an inquiry under Section 64. This is a proposition which cannot be accepted. Section 64 in its terms prescribes the minimum number who are required to make the complaint in order that the Registrar shall hold an inquiry. However, it is possible that the Registrar may initiate the proceedings suo motu, if he is satisfied and this is also what the Division Bench has laid down. If a single complaint is sufficient to galvanise the authority into holding an inquiry, it is permissible for him to conduct an inquiry suo motu. This cannot be taken as being a mandate, that an inquiry ought to be held even on the basis of a single complaint. In any event, an inquiry having been ordered, it cannot be said that the petitioners are aggrieved. If at the inquiry, the pointed allegations made by the petitioners are not taken into account by the Assistant Registrar and if there are no findings on the allegations made by the petitioners, their only remedy would be to muster the requisite number of members as required under Section 64 of the Act to make a complaint in this regard to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who would then have no other alternative, but to hold an inquiry with reference to such a complaint. It cannot be said that the complaint must and should be gone into even if it is made by the petitioners alone, without the requirement under Section 64 being complied with. With the above observation, the petition stands disposed of.