Sankarasubban, J.

These Original Petitions are filed by the members of the ersthwhile Managing Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom and the Commissioner and the previous Administrator of the Devaswom against the orders passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and special Judge, Trichur in C.M.P.No.559 of 2002. By this order, the court has directed vigilance enquiry and further action on Ext.P1 complaint. Ext.P1 complaint is filed by one Suresh alleging certain allegations against previous members of the Managing Committee and against the Administrator and Commissioner. As soon as the complaint was received, the Special Judge called for the remarks from the Commissioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed.

2. The complaint is filed under the prevention of Corruption Act. It further states that the audit was not taking place due to the mismanagement of the members of the Managing Committee. The Enquiry Commissioner got details from the Commissioner of Guruvayur Devaswom and passed the impugned order, which is marked as Ext.P2 in O.P.No.4292 of 2003.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that under the Guruvayur Devaswom Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), there cannot be any complaint corruption against the petitioners. According to them, the Act itself of prescribes the procedure for recovering loss that has been resulted on the fault of the members. According to them, a person has got right to live peacefully and if an enquiry is foisted against a person it will affect his reputation in the society. The petitioners are also critical of the manner in which Ext.P2 order has been passed. Ext.P2 order will clearly go against the petitioners. Impleading petitions have been filed by some persons. They supported the order passed by the learned Judge and submitted that it is only a preliminary order and that the petitioners are prejudiced by the impunged order.

4. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader and also learned counsel for the impleading petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice certain Sections of the Act. Chapter IV deals with budget, accounts and audit. Section 23(1) of the Act says that the Committee shall keep regular accounts of all receipts and disbursements. Section 23(2) states that the accounts of the Devaswom shall be subject to concurrent audit, that is to say, the audit shall take place as and when expenditure is incurred. Sub Section (3) of Section 23 of the Act says that the audit shall be made by auditors appointed in the prescribed manner, who shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. After the completion of the audit, the audit report is given to the Commissioner. Section 26 of the Act deals with rectification of defects disclosed in audit and order of surcharge against Committee, etc. As per Section 26 of the Act, the Commissioner shall send a copy of every audit report to the Committee and it shall be the duty of the Committee to remedy any defects or irregularities pointed out by the auditor and report the same to the Commissioner. Under Sub Section (2) of Section 26 of the Act, if, on a consideration of the report of the auditor along with the report, if any, of the Committee, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Committee or any officer or other employee of the Devaswom was guilty of misappropriation or willful waste of the funds of the Devaswom or of gross neglect resulting in loss to the Devaswom, the Commissioner may, after giving notice to the Committee or such officer or other employee to show cause why an order of surcharge should not be passed against it or him and after considering its or his explanation, if any, by order certify the amount so lost and direct the Committee or such officer or other employee to pay within a specified time such amount personally and not from the funds of the Devaswom. Any person aggrieved by the order of surchar