JUDGMENT R.N. Laddha, J. - Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. Pravin Faldessai, learned additional Government advocate for the Respondents. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the impugned order dated 13.08.2019 made by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies purporting to exercise the powers under Sections 76(a)(1) and 59(11) of the Goa Co-operative Societies act, 2001 and the Rules made thereunder. By the impugned order, the Petitioner has been disqualified to hold the position of Director of the Goa State Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited. 3. Section 76(a) of the Goa Co-operative Societies act provides that the Registrar may, on the request made by a creditor or federal institution or not less than one-third of the total number of members of the board of directors or not less than one-fifth of the total number of members of a society, or of his own motion, by himself, or by a person duly authorized by him in writing in this behalf, undertake inspection and inquiry into the constitution , working and financial condition of such society and submit a report thereon. Further, Section 77(2) of the said act provides that the Registrar may, of his own motion, and shall, on the application of a Federation to which the society concerned is affiliated or of a creditor to whom the society is indebted or of not less than one-third of the directors, or of not less than one-tenth of the members, cause an inquiry to be made into the specific matter or matters relating to any gross violation of any of the provisions of this act by the society. 4. The aforesaid provisions indicate that the Registrar may exercise powers of his own motion or suo motu. Both Sections 76(a) and 77(2) of the said act refer to the complaint of 'not less than one-third of the total number of members of the board of directors' and 'not less than one-third of the directors'. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners state that similar petitions filed by the other directors are pending and Rule has been issued thereon. In those petitions also, the Court has stayed the disqualification of the Petitioners therein pending the hearing and final disposal of those petitions. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners state that similar petitions filed by the other directors are pending and Rule has been issued thereon. In those petitions also, the Court has stayed the disqualification of the Petitioners therein pending the hearing and final disposal of those petitions. Writ Petition No.768/2019 is one of such petitions wherein an order was passed by the Division Bench of this Court and stayed the disqualification of the Petitioner pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners make it clear that the Petitioners seek no relief at the interim stage with regard to the continuance of the administrator who is already appointed to govern the affairs of the society. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners state that the show-cause notice dated 11.06.2018 was issued on the basis of complaint dated 14.03.2018 and inquiry report prepared by Mr. Shridhar Vernekar, the chartered accountant who was ordered by the Respondent No.1 to prepare inquiry report pursuant to the complaint dated 14.03.2018. It is contended that under Section 77 of the Goa Co-operative Societies act, it is mandatory that, when an inquiry is ordered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, it has to be either suo motu or based on application made by one-third of the total number of directors. It is his contention that the total number of directors of Goa Dairy is 15, as such, the one-third of the same is 5. The complaint dated 14.03.2018 was lodged by only one of the directors of the board, as such, the Registrar/Respondent No.1 could not have exercised powers under Section 77(2) to appoint inquiry officer on the basis of the application made by only one of the directors of the board and more so, he being the complainant. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further states that the second show-cause notice dated 11.06.2018 is based on inquiry report prepared by Shri Shridhar Vernekar, which is without jurisdiction. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid position, this Court stay the disqualification of the Petitioners pending the hearing and final disposal of these petitions. However, it is made clear that the administrator if already appointed to govern the affairs of the society, may continue to do so. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid position, this Court stay the disqualification of the Petitioners pending the hearing and final disposal of these petitions. However, it is made clear that the administrator if already appointed to govern the affairs of the society, may continue to do so. On the basis of this stay, therefore, it shall not be open to the Petitioners to insist upon the reconstitution of the board of directors pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition.