Devan Ramachandran, J.

The pre-conditional sine qua non for the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to invoke jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, so as to cause an inquiry suo motu into the working of a co-operative society registered under it, is the issue that the petitioner calls our attention to in this writ petition; his assertion on law being that the Registrar can initiate any such inquiry only after he is “satisfied subjectively” of its need and requirement, based on a personal evaluation of the relevant factual factors, materials and circumstances that are presented before him, seeking a warrant for such an inquiry. As a necessitous corollary, the nature and manner of such “subjective satisfaction” is also requested into consideration by the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts first.

3. Melukara Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which is a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) as the first appellant and its President as the second appellant, have filed this appeal calling into question the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 17976 of 2017, dated 7.7.2017, whereby the action ordered by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the respondent herein, to initiate an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act, was granted imprimatur.

4. The appellants vociferously contend that the order impugned herein, by which the Joint Registrar has sanctioned an inquiry under section 65 of the Act, is per se illegal and unlawful, since under the mandate of the said section, he could have done so only within the specified parameters prescribed therein. The appellants assail the order of the Joint Registrar, a copy of which has been appended to the writ petition as Ext.P1, on the specific ground that an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act was ordered by him without there being any material on record justifying it and without being first subjectively satisfied that such an action was necessary.

5. We heard Sri Liju V.Stephen, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sunilkumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

6. Since the fulcrum on which the entire case of the appellants revolves is the manner in which Section 65 of the Act is to be interpreted, we deem it idoneous to extract the same as under:

“65. Inquiry by Registrar.--(1) The Registrar may,--

(a) on his own motion; or

(b) on an inquiry report of the Vigilance Officer appointed under Sec.68A; or

(c) on a report of the Director of Co-operative Audit appointed under Sec.63; or

(d) on application by the majority of the members of the committee of the society, or by not less than one third of the quorum for the general body meeting, whichever is less; or

(e) on an application by the apex society or financing bank of which such society is a member; or

(f) on an application of a society to which the society concerned is affiliated,-

hold an inquiry by himself or by a person authorised by order in writing, into the Constitution, working and financial condition of the society, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so.”

7. As per the provisions of Section 65, discernible from the extracted portion, an inquiry by the Registrar may be ordered either on his own motion or in the contingencies enumerated in sub-clauses (b) to (f) of the said Section. The power to initiate an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act on the motion of the Registrar is contained very pithily in sub-clause (a) which says that the Registrar may hold an inquiry by himself or by a person authorised by an order in writing, into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society, if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. However, the provision clearly ingrains a qualification that such an inquiry need be ordered “only if he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so.” The words “that it is necessary to do so” in the last portion of Secti