Judgment : The petitioner-society represented by its president questions proceedings of the respondent/Commissioner of fisheries initiating enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (in short, the Act) against the affairs of the society on two grounds viz., (1) that the requirements under Section 51 of the Act are not existing for ordering enquiry thereunder; and (2) that since the 2nd respondent-Deputy Director of Fisheries is also notified as Registrar in respect of fishermen cooperative society, the Commissioner may not exercise the powers of Registrar under Section 51 of the Act. 2) By G.O.Ms.No.1968, F&A, dated 14.06.1966, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh designated the Deputy Director of Fisheries dealing with the administration of Fishermen Co-operative Societies as Deputy Director of Fisheries and Ex-officio Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The said G.O whereby the Deputy Director was designated as Ex-officio Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies did not withdraw designation of the Commissioner as Ex-officio Registrar of the Cooperative Societies. Simply because there is a joint registrar notified, the powers of the 1st respondent Commissioner as Registrar are not taken away. The 1st respondent-Commissioner in his capacity as Registrar of Cooperative Societies, passed the impugned proceedings initiating enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. The Commissioner is well within his powers as Registrar of Cooperative Societies, to pass the impugned proceedings. 3) It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act can be initiated either (1) of his motion or (2) on the application of the 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 total number of members of the society. The impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent read that Ex-chairman of the Society and other members of the Society in their representation dated 28.11.2011 made certain allegations against managing committee of the society on the following items: “1) Appropriation of society income. 2) Approval of General body u/s 30 (2) (II)(III)IIV)(VII) is respect of annual report, audit report, budget etc., 3) Sale of fish catch against the Government rules. 4) Forged General body meeting. 5) Sale of fish proceeds not deposited in the Bank. 2) Approval of General body u/s 30 (2) (II)(III)IIV)(VII) is respect of annual report, audit report, budget etc., 3) Sale of fish catch against the Government rules. 4) Forged General body meeting. 5) Sale of fish proceeds not deposited in the Bank. 6) Recovery of loss from the managing committee caused to due to sale of fish at lower prices and before attaining maximum growth.” The impugned proceedings further read that in view of the above and by virtue of powers vested in him under Section 51 of the Act, the Commissioner appointed General Manager, A.P.State Fishermen Cooperative Society Federation Limited, Hyderabad by name Sri K.Gurrappa as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry in the functioning, affairs and financial irregularities with special reference to the above mentioned allegations pertaining to the Society and submit his report within one month from the date of receipt of that order. 4) It is contended that membership of the petitioner-society consists of more than 2000 and less than 3000 and that when about 304 members gave representation to the Commissioner, the Commissioner could not have exercised the power under Section 51 of the Act for initiating enquiry thereunder. Though the numbers of signatories in the representation given to the Commissioner does not satisfy the number required as per second limb of Section 51 of the Act, the question is whether the action taken by the Commissioner cannot be reckoned as one initiated by the Commissioner under first limb of the Act. The officer or a Registrar cannot exercise suo motu powers by sudden imagination or any similar happening. A registrar can exercise suo motu power only after receiving certain information regarding irregularities in the society. In this case, the 1st respondent commissioner/Registrar received such information by way of representation of the Ex-president and other members. If the said representation is taken as information received by the 1st respondent, then the action taken by the 1st respondent invoking Section 51 of the Act and initiating the action thereunder would amount to exercise of powers suo motu. While exercising suo motu power, the 1st respondent did not order only in respect of the allegations made in the Representation, but also ordered enquiry into entire functioning, affairs and financial irregularities of the Society. While exercising suo motu power, the 1st respondent did not order only in respect of the allegations made in the Representation, but also ordered enquiry into entire functioning, affairs and financial irregularities of the Society. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that initiation of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. After having come to know about certain irregularities in the society, in case the 1st respondent remained mum, then it amounts to non-performing of his duties as Registrar of Cooperative Societies. In initiating enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, in my opinion, the 1st respondent did not commit any illegality or irregularity but acted well within his powers and it cannot be questioned in this writ petition. 5) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.