case, even though this Court by the Order in Crl.O.P.No.6153 of 2021, had directed to proceed further and take necessary and appropriate action on the complaint, dated 06.02.2021, it can be seen from the minutes of the meeting of the commission held on 17.08.2021, which is extracted above that the Commission ultimately decided to register a ‘ suo moto ’ case and not on the reference or information received from the person. The inquiry under the act is held to be neither civil nor criminal but sui generis and is inquisitorial in nature. In that view of the matter, the course adopted by the Commission to have the said information received from the association in the back drop and to register a suo moto case cannot be termed as illegal. When the commission in its meeting deliberates and decides to register a ‘ suo moto ’ case, the formation of the opinion as to prima facie case is very much pregnant in the said decision. As a matter of fact, a perusal of Section 26(2) of the Act would make this clear that it clearly states only in case of receipt of information from the Central Government or State Government or Statutory Authority or other information received, it can close the complaint and the very act of initiating a suo moto complaint and closing it on the ground of no prima facie case cannot go together. Thus, (i) the satisfaction of prima facie case is impregnant and very much there in the very decision
