1. The petitioner, President of the Mylachal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No: 683 has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings of the first respondent by which an enquiry under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the ‘Act’ for short has been ordered. According to the petitioner, one Vikraman Nair who is the third respondent in this writ petition was carrying on a campaign of submitting complaints against the society to the authorities. Such complaints had been got enquired into through the Assistant Registrars and were found to be without any substance as per Exts.P3 and P5 reports. Therefore, there is no necessity for ordering a further enquiry under Section 66 of the Act. It is contended that the present enquiry that has been ordered is motivated and is intended only to fish for evidence with the object of superseding the elected Managing Committee that is in power. It is contended that the provisions of law should not be used for such oblique purposes and therefore the order Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside.

2. According to Adv. P.C. Sasidharan who appears for the petitioner, Section 66 contemplates the ordering of an enquiry in a situation where a creditor of a society wants such an enquiry to be conducted. The supervisory power of the Registrar under Section 66 does not extend to ordering of an enquiry on the basis of a complaint filed by the third respondent as in the present case. The order Ext.P1 itself shows that the enquiry has been directed to be conducted into the complaints made by the third respondent. Since the complaints have already been found to be without any substance by the earlier enquiries conducted it is contended that the present enquiry that has been ordered, is highly improper and an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner therefore seeks the intervention of this Court to set aside Ext.P1.

3. The learned Govt. Pleader on the other hand points out that Ext.P1 order has been issued not merely for the purpose of enquiring into the complaints made by the third respondent. The scope of the enquiry ordered under Section 66 is wider since it encompasses an enquiry into the general working of the society also. It is true that such an enquiry has been ordered after considering the complaint of the third respondent as well as the earlier reports submitted in the matter. That does not in any waylimit the jurisdiction of the first respondent in exercising the power under Section 66 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in K.G. Sadasivan v. Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies and others (2008 (1) KHC 556) to point out that the first respondent is at liberty to collect the information required for ordering an enquiry under Section 66 from any source, including a complaint made by another person. For the above reasons, the learned Govt. Pleader seeks dismissal of this writ petition.

4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Pleader at length. I have also considered the rival contentions advanced before me anxiously.

5. It is true that the third respondent appears to have been making complaints about the working of the bank. It is also true that as per Exts.P3 and P5 reports, the Assistant Registrar has found that the complaints of the third respondent were without substance. However, a perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the first respondent has considered the said reports as well as the complaint of the third respondent and has entered a finding that the reports already submitted are not sufficient to disclose the veracity of the allegations made by the third respondent. For the above reason, the first respondent has found that an enquiry specifically into the complaints raised by the third respondent and generally into the working of the Co-operative bank was necessary to be conducted. It is on the basis of such a finding that an enquiry under Section 66 of the Act has been ordered. I do not find