IMPORTANT POINT
Writ Petition is one that is traceable to the provisions of Rule 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and it is merely an intimation to the petitioner, of the order recording the subjective satisfaction of the Registrar , as regards the necessity to conduct an enquiry in the manner stipulated under section 65 (1) of the Act. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has the locus standi to impugn the said communication before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, on a mere apprehension that the proceedings that would follow will result in a prejudicial order against the petitioner

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 the statutory scheme that informs Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act that, at the stage where the petitioner has approached this Court with the present Writ Petition, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by any action taken by the 1st respondent Joint Registrar. Under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar is given the power to hold an enquiry, either by himself or through a person authorised to an order in writing, into the Constitution, working and financial condition of a society, if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do. It is apparent from a reading of the provision that at this stage, all that is contemplated is the subjective satisfaction of the Registrar, a statutory authority under the Act, as regards the necessity of conducting an enquiry in to the constitution, working and financial condition of the society concerned. The procedure to be followed in connection with the said decision of the Registrar is enumerated in Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. A perusal of the said Rule would indicate that once the Registrar satisfies himself of the necessity of holding an enquiry, the order authorising the enquiry has to comply with certain requirements as enumerated in Rule 66(1) and a copy of the order authorising the enquiry under Section 65 has to be issued to the President or the Secretary of the Society concerned by registered post with acknowledgement due. Thereafter, the enquiry itself is to be conducted by the authorised person and a report submitted by the said person to the Registrar on the points mentioned in the order authorising the enquiry. The provisions also indicate as to what documents must accompany the report and the nature of the findings that must be recorded in the report to be submitted before the Registrar. Thereafter, the Registrar has to pass orders in the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the society and others concerned.

4. When I peruse the statutory provisions, I find that Ext.P4 communication that is impugned in the Writ Petition is one that is traceable to the provisions of Rule 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and it is merely an intimation to the petitioner, of the order recording the subjective satisfaction of the Registrar , as regards the necessity to conduct an enquiry in the manner stipulated under section 65 (1) of the Act. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has the locus standi to impugn the said communication before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, on a mere apprehension that the proceedings that would follow will result in a prejudicial order against the petitioner. In my view, the petitioner cannot be said to be a pers