Writ petition by persons claiming to be members/shareholders of the third respondent-Private Co-operative Bank who it appears were on the Board of Directors of the Bank.

2. It is claimed that the first petitioner was the Chairman and second petitioner was a Director at the point of time when the management of the Bank was superseded and management of the affairs of the Bank was entrusted to the second respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

3. The present writ petition is in the wake of the order dated 11-7-2008 (copy at Annexure-F) passed by the second respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies purporting to be an order in exercise of the powers of the Registrar under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, `the Act') and for the purpose of inquiring into the manner of management of the Bank earlier, particularly, when it was in the management of the elected representatives of the shareholders of the Bank and in the context appointing one K.B. Chennegowda, retired Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies as Inquiry Officer and fixing his remuneration for conducting inquiry at rupees one lakh.

4. This order itself had come to be passed superceding the earlier like order which was in vogue ever since 19-10-2005 whereunder one M.S. Rudraiah also a retired official of the Co-operative Department who retired as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies who it appears had not even commenced his inquiry under Section 64 of the Act as per the report of the liquidator who was in charge of the affairs of the society even in terms of communication dated 5-9-2007. Said Rudraiah himself was successor to one Syed Asif, another retired Assistant Registrar who was incharge of the inquiry as per earlier order dated 13-5-2005 and on finding that there was need to replace him.

5. It is in the wake of such series of appointments of Inquiry Officers to conduct the inquiry under Section 64 of the Act, the present writ petition complaining that issuing such orders and appointing successive Inquiry Officers is not only an abuse of the power under Section 64 of the Act but also is at cross purposes to the mandate of completing an inquiry of this nature within the normal duration of twelve months and which can be at the maximum extended to an outer limit of another six months but not beyond as stipulated under Section 64(2-A) of the Act which reads as under:

"64. Inquiry by Registrar

(2-A) An inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of twelve months which may, however be extended by the State Government on the recommendation of the Registrar, for a further period of six months".

6. It is also the version of the petitioners that the society went out of the control of elected representatives even during the year 2001; that it has been managed only by the officials of the Co-operative Department every since 10-4-2004; that while so, the Bank itself was ordered to be wound up and liquidator appointed as per order dated 30-6-2006; that the Bank reached the stage of inviting an order for liquidating the Bank during the tenure of the officials of the department being at the helm of affairs of the Bank; that when such is the position, appointing successive Inquiry Officers to go into the affairs of the manner of the management or the accounts of the Bank for the earlier period and that too keeping it open for as long a period of eight years is nothing but harassment to the petitioners; that the petitioners are unnecessarily being victimised by such thoughtless action on the part of the respondents; that the impugned order is also in contravention of the provisions of Section 64(2-A) of the Act and therefore the impugned order deserves to be quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari.

7. Notice had been issued to the respondents. Sri Hanumantharayappa, learned Government Pleader appears for the State and its officials, Sri Sailesh S.K, learned Counsel appears for the