Petitioner cannot challenge inquiry orders without completion of associated proceedings under the Act following established legal precedents.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies(General), Thrissur, directing the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to conduct an inquiry in respect of the matters set out therein. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that, on an earlier occasion, proceedings were initiated under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969(for short, 'the Act') and, based on the report prepared thereunder, an order under sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act was issued. It is submitted that the said order was interfered with by this Court through judgment in W.P.(C)No.41566 of 2023(Ext.P4). It is further submitted that, without taking into consideration the findings in Ext.P4 judgment, the Joint Registrar has now ordered the conduct of an inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. It is submitted that Ext.P5 reflects a clear non-application of mind on the part of the Joint Registrar. It is also submitted that, where there is non-application of mind in passing an order directing an inquiry under of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the same without waiting for the inquiry to be completed.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents would submit that it is clear from the law laid down by the Full Bench inKudayath00r Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies(General); [2022 (3) KLT 222 (FB)], that the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P5 proceedings at this stage and the petitioner can raise any contention against Ext.P5 or against the inquiry report prepared in terms of the provisions contained in Section 65 of the Act only at the stage when further proceedings under Section 32 or Section 68 of the Act are initiated. It is also submitted that of the Act has been amended with effect from 07.06.2024 and that, by virtue of the incorporation of sub- sections (2)(d) and (2A) of , notice was issued to the persons concerned and their contentions were also considered before finalising the report under section 65 of the 1969 Act. It is further submitted that all contentions can be raised as and when further proceedings are initiated against the members of the committee or against any other person.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader, and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Full Bench in Kudayath00r (supra), I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with Ext.P5 at this stage. Moreover, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 65 (2)(d) of the Act, the person or persons related to or involved in the inquiry have been issued with a notice and they have also been afforded an opportunity of being heard. When such an opportunity has also been provided, the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P5 order in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed, making it clear that all contentions raised by the petitioner are left open to be raised at the appropriate stage in the light of the law laid down in Kudayath00r (supra)

Sd/-