S.V. Gangapurwala, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23/26.7.2004, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1143/2004. The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 6.10.2003, passed by the Commissioner of Sugar, directing fresh inquiry U/s 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, (hereinafter referred to as MCS Act), so also the order of the State Government dismissing the Revision under order dated 29.12.2003.

2. Mr.Dhorde, learned Senior advocate for the appellants submits :

(a) Powers U/s 88 of the MCS Act, 1960 exercised by the Registrar/Commissioner are quasi judicial in nature. Rule 72 of the MCS Rules, 1961 lays down complete scheme as to how the proceedings U/s 88 are to be conducted. The evidence is led, final arguments are heard and thereafter the order is passed. When quasi judicial powers are delegated to the authorised Officer/delegate then the order passed by the authorised Officer/delegate can not be reviewed/revised by the delegating authority. Learned Senior advocate relies on following judgments:

(i) "Roop Chand Vs. State of Punjab and another" reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1503;

(ii) "Bombay Municipal Corporation Vs. Dhondu Narayan Chowdhary" reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1486;

(iii) "Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti and another Vs. State of U.P. and others" reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3123;

(iv) "State of Orissa and others Vs. Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Cuttack and others" reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3067;

(v) "M/s OCL India Limited Vs. State of Orissa and others" reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2148;

(b) Once the inquiry is completed and order is passed by the authorised Officer, recalling that inquiry and entrusting it to the other Officer is not permissible. Once the inquiry is completed then fresh inquiry can not be directed on the same ground by appointing another Officer. The Inquiry was completed by Shri Mane, and he has passed the final order U/s 88 of the MCS Act, 1960. Thereafter, no authority has power to direct fresh inquiry on the same grounds. Section 88 of the Act does not provide that the authority/authorised Officer is required to submit his report to the Cooperative Department i.e. the Commissioner and thereafter the Commissioner passing any independent order of recovery. In fact, the scheme of Section 88 does not require passing of two separate orders. The learned Senior advocate relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of "Jalgaon Jamod Taluka Kharedi Vikri Sanstha Ltd. Vs. Shivhari Pandurang Wagh and others" reported in 2006(1) Mh.L.J.653 and another judgment of this Court in the case of "Mr.Gajanan Mahadeo Kulkarni and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others" reported in 2009 (5) All M.R.331.

(c) The Respondent No.3 Commissioner of Sugar without hearing the appellant has directed fresh inquiry which itself is in breach of principles of natural justice. Learned Senior advocate relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Uma Nath Pandey and others Vs. State of U.P." reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2375.

(d) The observations made by the learned single Judge in para 16 of its order that inquiry Officer U/s 88 had no power to sit in appeal over the inquiry report U/s 83 of the MCS Act, 1960 and was required to simply assess the liability for causing damages individually or collectively is itself perverse on the face of record. The report U/s 83 is forwarded to the authorised Officer U/s 88 and after holding full-fledged inquiry, the decision is taken by the Inquiry Officer U/s 88 of the MCS Act.

(e) The observation made by the learned single Judge in the impugned order and the Minister for Cooperation that there is no provision for re-inquiry yet, re-inquiry if directed would not prejudice or harm the appellant is itself perverse because the appellant can not be made