JUDGMENT : DINESH MEHTA, J. An application has been moved by Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain seeking his impleadment in SB Civil Petitions No. 9988/2019 and No. 9982/2019. 2. For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the fact that he is already a party respondent in the Civil Writ Petition No. 9628/2019, the impleadment application is allowed. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain is impleaded as respondent No. 4 in both the petitions. Amended cause title be filed within a week. 3. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, laying challenge to the initiation of the enquiry, vide notice dated 25.06.2019 and the consequential orders dated 02.07.2019 and 05.07.2019. 4. The facts involved in these writ petitions, if assimilate, go like this: by a notice dated 25.06.2019, the Registrar Societies initiated inquiry, which has been challenged by the petitioners by way of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9628/2019, interalia contending that the Registrar cannot conduct a roving and fishing inquiry and that the inquiry qua Points No. 1 & 4 of the notice relate to election dispute, which is outside his jurisdiction; the other writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 9988/2019) questions the order dated 02.07.2019, vide which the Registrar has appointed one Jitendra Sharma, Inspector of the Cooperative Societies to be an Inquiry Officer; whereas the third writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 9982/2019) subjects the order dated 05.07.2019 to judicial scrutiny, vide which the Registrar Cooperative Societies has appointed Adhoc Committee. 5. Mr. Balia, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that firstly the initiation of inquiry against the petitioners, vide notice dated 25.06.2019 is bad in the eye of law, inasmuch as Points No. 1 & 4 of the notice relate to election dispute and Points No. 2 & 3 thereof is an inquiry, without there being any basis or material justifying it. 6. Advancing the arguments further, he asserts that no sooner had the petitioners filed their first writ petitions, than the Registrar Cooperative Societies appointed an Inquiry Officer on (02.07.2019) requiring him to furnish his report within a period of seven days. The report, as expected, came within a period of three days, followed by the impugned order (dated 05.07.2019), appointing Adhoc Committee. While challenging the very initiation of the proceedings and the manner in which the respondents have proceeded, Mr. Balia submits that the very initiation of the inquiry was not in accordance with law. The report, as expected, came within a period of three days, followed by the impugned order (dated 05.07.2019), appointing Adhoc Committee. While challenging the very initiation of the proceedings and the manner in which the respondents have proceeded, Mr. Balia submits that the very initiation of the inquiry was not in accordance with law. He points out that as per Section 23 of the Rajasthan Sports (Registration, Recognition and Regulation of Associations) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) the Registrar may initiate inquiry in the following three circumstances: (i) on the request of a State Level Sports Association, or (ii) on the request of not less than one tenth of the total members of a Sports Association, or (iii) on his own motion. 7. Learned counsel submits that none of the above three contingencies existed in the present case, for which the Registrar could initiate the inquiry and that the inquiry has been initiated at the instance of Anil Jain and Sushil Kumar Jain, who are admittedly not members of the Sports Association. 8. Adverting to the impugned order dated 05.07.2019, passed by the Registrar Societies, Dungarpur he contends that the same is ex-facie illegal and contrary to provisions contained in Section 24 of the Act, as no notice prior to declaring them disqualified and appointing Adhoc Committee was issued to the petitioners as mandated by Section 24 of the Act of 2005. 9. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Ravindra Paliwal appearing on behalf of Mr. Sushil Kumar submits that the Registrar has initiated the proceedings under Section 23 of the Act suo moto and the same cannot be said to have been initiated at the petitioners' request. He further submits that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35 of the Act is available to the petitioners, in case they feel aggrieved by the orders dated 02.07.2019/05.07.2019. It is further argued that instead of furnishing any explanation or response to the notice (25.06.2019) issued to them, the petitioners have rushed to this Court. 10. In support of his submissions, Mr. Bhansali relies upon the judgment of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1696/2016: Hemprakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 06.10.2016, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.10.2016 in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 762/2016: Hemprakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 11. 10. In support of his submissions, Mr. Bhansali relies upon the judgment of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1696/2016: Hemprakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 06.10.2016, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 21.10.2016 in DB Civil Special Appeal No. 762/2016: Hemprakash Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 11. During the course of submissions, it was informed that the Election Officer has been appointed, who has issued an election programme on 08.07.2019; according to which the elections are scheduled on 31.07.2019. 12. With these submissions, Mr. Bhansali argues that these writ petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of prima faice opinion that the manner in which the inquiry has been initiated, conducted and concluded, unravels the respondents’ motive to dislodge the duly elected body. That apart, the appointment of the Adhoc Committee by order dated 05.07.2019 is contrary to Section 24 of the Act, inasmuch as no notice prior to appointing Adhoc Committee was issued to the petitioner, eliciting their response qua the inquiry report. 14. As the proceedings initiated are prima facie arbitrary and without jurisdiction; coupled with the fact that the order dated 05.07.2019 is in apparent contravention of the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, the remedy by way of appeal cannot be said to be efficacious, having regard to the overall facts obtaining in the present case. 15. The matters require consideration. 16. Hence, admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay application also. Notices be made returnable on 05.08.2019. 17. Meanwhile and until further orders, effect and operation of the order dated 05.07.2019 (Annex. 1), appointing the Adhoc Committee shall remain stayed, 18. It is also made clear that since the effect and operation of the order dated 05.07.2019, appointing the Adhoc Committee has been stayed, the process of election, if any, set in motion shall also remain in abeyance.