1. The petitioner is the President of the Koliyakode Consumer Co-operative Society Ltd., a Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ and ‘Rules’ for short). The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P10 order of the 2nd respondent by which, an enquiry has been ordered under S.68(1) of the Act. Earlier, the 1st respondent had issued an order dated 27.07.2013, appointing the Unit Inspector, Venjaramoodu as Enquiry Officer for conducting an inspection under S.66 of the Act. The said order is Ext.P8. The petitioner had challenged the said proceedings before this Court in W.P.(C) No.24726 of 2013. As per Ext.P9, the said Writ Petition was disposed of recording the statement made on behalf of the State that the petitioner would be given notice, if any adverse orders were proposed to be passed. Therefore, the Writ Petition was closed leaving open the statutory remedies available to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything in the matter. He has now being served with Ext.P10 order of the 2nd respondent by which, an enquiry has been ordered under S.68(1) of the Act. The direction is to quantify the loss that has been caused to the Society as well as to identify the persons responsible for causing such loss. The petitioner contends that Ext.P10 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside for the reason that, he was not heard before the said order was passed.

2. According to Adv. Sri. V.G. Arun who appears for the petitioner, an enquiry has been conducted under S.66 of the Act pursuant to Ext.P8 order. No copy of the report of enquiry has been furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore does not know the contents thereof. Nor does he have any idea about the materials on the basis of which the findings therein have been arrived at. According to the counsel, Ext.P10 is an action initiated on the basis of the enquiry report under S.66 of the Act. Reliance is placed on R.66(5) to contend that, it is mandatory for the petitioner to be heard before any action is taken on a report submitted under S.66 of the Act. The said mandatory procedure not having been complied with before issuing Ext.P10, the said order is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of this Court in Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (2009 (4) KLT 378) & Murali v. Joint Registrar (2005 (3) KLT 69) in support of his contentions.

3. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are opposed by the learned Special Government Pleader Sri. D. Somasundaram, who appears for the respondents. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, no order prejudicial to the interests of the petitioner has been passed till date. The enquiry under S.66 is only a fact finding enquiry. R.66(5) contemplates only the determination of the costs of the enquiry and fixing of the liability to bear the costs. The hearing contemplated by the said provision is only for the said purpose as held by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Aravindakshan Nair (2010 (3) KLT 11). It is also pointed out that, R.66 deals with the procedure to be followed while conducting an enquiry, inspection, suspension, investigation and surcharge. Each of the above are to be initiated, by following the procedure stipulated by R.66. The fact that R.66(7) deals with an enquiry under S.66 (1) also does not justify a conclusion that the hearing contemplated by R.66(5) has to be a necessary precondition for any action to be initiated on the basis of a report.

4. Heard. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P10, an order directing the conduct of an enquiry under S.68(1) of the Act. In the first place, the conduct of an enquiry cannot be said to visit a person with any prejudice. Secondly, it is worth noticing that, no action has bee