1. The petitioners' a District Co - operative Society and its Board of Directors' have a common grievance: It is impermissible for the second respondent to order a series of enquiries into the same set of allegations.

2. Briefly stated, on 28/11/2014, through Ext. P2 the second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the alleged irregularities as regards the tender for constructing a building under the direction of the second respondent managing committee. As seen from Ext. P2, the second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer under S.66(2) of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act'). In the course of time, the Enquiry Officer submitted Ext. P8 report concluding that there were no irregularities committed by the second respondent.

3. Later, the second respondent issued Ext. P11 proceedings dated 06/06/2015 appointing another Enquiry Officer on the same allegations. That apart, he has also required a Vigilance Officer, ostensibly invoking powers under S.68A of the Act, to look in to the issue. In turn, the Vigilance Officer issued Ext. P13 notice to the petitioners requiring them to participate in the enquiry being undertaken by him. Thus