Inquiry order under Section 65 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act valid if based on materials showing necessity and application of mind; challenge premature.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) (in-charge of Mananthavady) directing an inquiry as contemplated by the provisions of Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Act').

2. Sri. M.P. Asok Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that the matters on which an inquiry is ordered under Ext.P4 were the subject matter of two earlier proceedings. He refers to Ext.P2 order issued on 29-12-2023 by the Joint Registrar (General), Wayanad, as also Ext.P3 proceedings of the Assistant Registrar (General), Mananthavady and contends that the same matters which were subject matter of Exts.P2 and P3 are now sought to be reopened and inquired into by issuing Ext.P4 order. He states that such a course of action is legally impermissible as no power of review is conferred on the Joint Registrar (General). It is submitted that if the inquiry pursuant to Ext.P4 is permitted to go on, the same would amount to reopening of issues already concluded by Exts.P2 and P3 orders. It is submitted that in such circumstances, notwithstanding the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Kudayathoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General);

2022 (3) KLT 222 (FB), the validity of Ext.P4 can be examined by this Court. It is submitted that the Registrar/Joint Registrar exercising the powers of Registrar cannot, at his whims and fancies, direct an inquiry underSection 65of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that the order initiating an inquiry underSection 68of the 1969 Act must reflect that there was an application of mind by the Registrar/Joint Registrar while ordering such inquiry, and it must also show that he/she was satisfied that an inquiry was necessary into the working of the society. He relied on the decision of this Court inBoard ofDirectors, the Kozhippally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v.Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), 2025 (5) KHC293in support of his contention. Finally, it is submitted that Ext.P4 order does not indicate which clause of of the 1969 Act has been invoked, and for this reason also Ext.P4 order is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the petitioner. Firstly, it is submitted that Exts.P2 and P3 are not orders/proceedings underSection 65of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that there is nothing in Exts.P2 and P3 that would indicate that those orders were orders/proceedings in conclusion of an inquiry under of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that, on the other hand, it can be seen from Exts.P2 and P3 that the authorities were only considering certain complaints raised by certain individuals, and these proceedings were not in relation to any inquiry under of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the issuance of Ext.P4 cannot be treated as attempting a review of concluded proceedings. It is pointed out from Ext.P4 that the materials referred to therein [including the report of the Vellamunda Police] dated 15-11-2025, (which is after Ext.P2 and P3) as also the proceedings of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) on 27-11-2025, indicate that the inquiry was necessary under the provisions of of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P4 will indicate that the Joint Registrar has clearly applied his mind to the relevant facts and he was satisfied that it was necessary to authorise an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society. It is submitted that, going by the Full Bench judgment o