JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the Managing Committee of a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank functioning under the territorial and administrative jurisdiction of respondents 1 and 2. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 communication issued to it by the 1st respondent in terms of Rule 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. It is the contention of the petitioner that the decision of the 1st respondent with regard to the necessity for authorising an enquiry in terms of Section 65 against the petitioner is flawed, and that the procedural safeguards that had to be adhered to before taking a decision in terms of Section 65 have not been followed by the 1st respondent. It is therefore prayed that this Court be pleased to eventually quash Ext.P4 proceedings, and in the meanwhile, stay further action pursuant to Ext.P4, pending disposal of the writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of t