The specific point or points on which an enquiry is to be made must be indicated in the proceedings ordering the enquiry, as required by R.66(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969.

1. The petitioner in this original petition is a co-operative society represented by its President. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext. P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies ordering an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the petitioner - society under S.65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 for short the Act. The main contention of the petitioner is that Ext P-1 proceedings is vitiated for the reason that R.66 (1) (c) of the Kerala Co-operate Societies Rules, 1969, for short the Rules, is not complied with. societies

2. The election to the Board of Management took place on 23 91973 and the present Board assumed office on 7-10-1973. As per the bye-laws of the society, two members were to be nominated by the Registrar and accordingly two members of (he society who were defaulters and hence disqualified to be nominated were, as a matter of fact, nominated. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in O.P. No. 3965 of 1973 and the nomination questioned therein was stayed by this Court as per order dated 12-12-1973. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent-Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the other officers of the department began to take an antagonistic attitude towards the society in view of the filing of the above original petition The petitioner's further case is that Ext. P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent ordering an enquiry under S.65 of the Act is the result of the above unhelpful attitude of the respondent.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent and in Para.11 of the above counter-affidavit the allegation of mala fides against the respondent is denied.

4. Shri Siby Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the 2nd respondent cannot overlook the mandatory provisions contained in R.66 (1) of the Rules in issuing the proceedings like Ext. P-1 orderings an enquiry under S.65 of the Act. R.66 (1) of the Rules reads:

"66. Procedure for the conduct of inquiry and inspection. (1) (i) An order, authorising inquiry under S.65 or inspection under S.66 shall among other things, contain the following:

(a) the name of the society whose affairs are to be inquired into or whose books of accounts are to be inspected;

(b) the name of the person authorised to conduct the inquiry or inspection;

(c) the specific point or points on which the inquiry or inspection is to be made, the period within which the inquiry or inspection is to be completed and report submitted to the Registrar;

(d) costs of inquiry or inspection;

(e) any other matter relating or pertaining to the inquiry or inspection."

Learned Government Pleader has no specific answer to the above contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The stand taken by the learned Government Pleader is that there are charges of misappropriation in the petitioner-society which are being enquired into by the Vigilance Department and in the above circumstances an enquiry under S.65 of the Act cannot be said to be out of place.

5. No doubt, under S.65 of the Act, the Registrar or any other officer of the department to whom the powers of the Registrar are delegated by the notification can order an enquiry. But in ordering an enquiry the specific point or points on which the enquiry is to be made are to be made known in the proceedings that is issued. This is what is insisted by R.66 (1)(c) of the Rules. Not only that, without indicating in the proceedings that is to precede an enquiry, the point or points on which enquiry is to be conducted, it goes without saying that no proper enquiry will be possible. Again, for the society and its office bearers to face the enquiry in a just manner the indication of the pointer points on which the enquiry is to be conducted in the proceedings is only essential. In this view of the matter, Ext. P-1 proceedings cannot be sustained.

Hence I quash Ext. P-1.

6. The origina