Inquiry powers include adjournments and adjournment costs, but costs must be apportioned fairly on the record.

The Inquiry Officer under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was treated as having incidental authority to regulate inquiry proceedings, including granting adjournments and awarding costs occasioned by adjournment. That power was read as flowing from the power to summon witnesses and conduct inquiry under Section 89, and was also considered consistent with the need for a full, fair and expeditious inquiry under Section 88, including orders made in conformity with natural justice. On the facts, however, the costs order was found excessive because the record did not show opposition by all respondents and only the petitioner had opposed the adjournment, so the costs awarded to respondents other than the petitioner bank were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Inquiry Officer under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 had the power to grant adjournment and impose costs of adjournment, and whether the particular order of costs was reasonable.

Analysis: The power to summon witnesses and conduct inquiry under Section 89 necessarily includes the incidental power to regulate the hearing, including granting adjournments, and the effective exercise of that power carries with it the power to award costs occasioned by adjournment, as reflected in Order XVII Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 88, which governs misfeasance proceedings of a quasi-criminal character, likewise requires a full and fair inquiry conducted in conformity with natural justice and expeditious procedure, and its power to make orders and award costs is broad enough to include costs connected with adjournments. On the facts, however, the cost order was excessive in its distribution because the record did not show opposition from all respondents, respondents 2 to 15 had a common cause with respondent 1, and the petitioner alone had opposed the adjournment.

Conclusion: The Inquiry Officer had the power to grant adjournment costs, but the cost order was modified so that only the costs in favour of the petitioner bank were sustained and the costs awarded to the other respondents were quashed.

---