( 1 ) -BY an order dated 19th September 1969 the District Registrar Co-operative Societies Nadiad in exercise of the power vested him under sec. 86 (1) of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 directed that an inquiry be instituted into the working constitution and financial affairs of Charotar Gramoddhar Sahkari Mandal Limited which is the petitioner before us and Shri Harivadan M. Parikh District Registrar Co-operative Societies (Rural) Ahmedabad be appointed as the Inquiry Officer for the purpose of holding the inquiry The petitioner being aggrieved by the order instituting the inquiry preferred a Revision Application to the Registrar Co-operative Societies Gujarat State who is respondent No. 3 before us under sec. 155 of the Act. This Revision Application was rejected by the Joint Registrar Administration and Appeals Co-operative Societies and the reasons which weighed with the Joint Registrar in rejecting the revision application were as follows:-WITH reference to your application dated 6-10-69 bearing on the above subject we are to inform you that order for inquiry passed u/s. 86 does not affect as such the rights of any party. Inquiry under sec. 86 is only a fact finding process and hence there cannot be any appeal or revision against such an order. Under the circumstances your revision application is filed in this office. This order made by the Joint Registrar is challenged in this petition. The petitioner also challenges the original order of the District Registrar instituting the inquiry on various grounds which include inter alia a ground relating to the constitutional validity of sec. 86.

( 2 ) WHEN the petition came up for admission before us on 3rd December 1969 we directed issue of notice to the respondents as we felt prima facie that sec. l55 was wide enough to cover a Revision Application against an order made under sec. 86 (1) and the Joint Registrar was in error in rejecting the Revision Application as not maintainable and an opportunity may therefore be given to the Joint Registrar to rectify the said error. But the stand taken by the Registrar at the hearing of the notice was that no revision application was maintainable against an order made under sec. 86 (1 ). We therefore issued a limited rule directed against respondent No. 3 to show cause why the order rejecting the revision application should not be quashed and set aside. We postponed the consideration of the question as to whether a rule as to the other reliefs should be issued or not since it was apparent that if the order rejecting the revision application was bad the Registrar would have to hear the revision application and in that event we may not in the exercise of our discretion interfere at. his stage with the original order made under sec. 86 (1) That is how the petition is before us to-day only for hearing of the rule as to the validity of the order rejecting the revision application.

( 3 ) THE short question which arises for consideration on these facts is whether a revision application lies under sec. 155 against an order made under sec. 86 sub-sec. (1) Sec. 155 which confers the revisional power is in the following terms:-155 The State Government and the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any other matter of any officer subordinate to them except those referred to in sub-sec. (9) of sec. 150 for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. If in any case it appears to the State Government or the Registrar that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified annulled or reversed the State Government or the Registrar as the case may be may after giving persons affected thereby an opportunity of being heard pass such order thereon as it or he may deem just. The Section is couched in very wide language and it empowers the State Govern