ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the bona fides of the third respondent who is said to be the District Registrar (Stamps and Registration). In the first instance, since there was no action taken by the said respondent on the basis of a complaint said to have been filed by the members at the instance of the person said to be representing a Society, a complaint had been lodged seeking action to be taken by the District Registrar. This was not in consonance with Section 25 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. However, this Court had directed that an enquiry be conducted. Consequently, the third respondent is said to have appointed the Sub-Registrar, Kolar as the Enquiry Officer. It is at that stage that the petitioner has come before this Court. The further complaint was that it was incumbent on the part of the third respondent to receive further information as to the scope of the enquiry and the issues that would have to be addressed by the Enquiry Officer. This is not the procedure prescribed. Since there was already a complaint which would disclose the scope of the enquiry, there was no need for the District Registrar to further gather information from the petitioner as sought to be suggested. The information provided in the first instance is expected to be adequate for the District Registrar to have taken action, in this Court having intervened and having directed him to hold an enquiry. Now that an Enquiry Officer has been appointed, notwithstanding that he may be subordinate to the third respondent, it is for the matter to run its course. At this stage, to complain about the bona fides of the third respondent that he has appointed a person of his choice without the petitioner's knowledge, is not something contemplated in law. The District Registrar has the discretion to appoint an Enquiry Officer. In fact, the Act does not even lay down guidelines as to who should be appointed as the Enquiry Officer and on what terms. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar having been appointed as the Enquiry Officer, the matter should run its course. 2. If in the course of enquiry information is required, which normally would be expected, it is then open for the Society represented by the authorised person to furnish such further information as may be required. Therefore, the Sub-Registrar having been appointed as the Enquiry Officer, the matter should run its course. 2. If in the course of enquiry information is required, which normally would be expected, it is then open for the Society represented by the authorised person to furnish such further information as may be required. The petitioner neither can direct that the third respondent be replaced nor could he be dictated to perform in a particular manner. The said respondent having acted pursuant to the direction of this Court, it cannot be said that there is any irregularity or illegality. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. In view of the further complaint that the matter could be procrastinated and the persons at the helm of affairs are likely to mismanage the property of the Society, the said apprehension could be allayed, for the Enquiry Officer is requested to expedite the enquiry and to file a report at the earliest. Since there are allegations that the enquiry could be scuttled to accommodate persons who are not acting to the interest of the Society, it is also necessary that there be a proper enquiry on all aspects of the matter, especially with regard to the financial irregularities alleged. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.