The 1^st petitioner is the Board of Directors

and the 2^nd petitioner is the President of

Kozhippally Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, which

is a Society registered under the provisions of

the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and

the rules made thereunder. The petitioners have

filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a writ of

certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 23.11.2017

of the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar, whereby an

inquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act has been ordered in the

working of the said Society, for the matters

enumerated therein, by appointing the 2^nd

respondent Inquiry Officer. The petitioners have

also sought for a declaration that Ext.P1 order

of inquiry issued by the 1^st respondent is tainted

with

malafides

oblique

motives,

without

application of mind and thus the same is without

any legal backing and cannot withstand the

3

scrutiny of law.

2. On 10.01.2018, when this writ petition

came up for admission, the learned Senior

Government Pleader was directed to file

statement. This Court granted an interim stay of

all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 for a

period of two weeks. The said interim order,

which was extended from time to time is still in

force.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the

1^st respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in

this writ petition. Along with the counter

affidavit, a copy of the inquiry report of the

Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies is

placed on record as Ext.R1(a). It was after

considering the said report that the 1^st

respondent

Joint

Registrar

invoked

his

jurisdiction under Section 65 of the Act and

issued Ext.P1 order. A copy of the relevant pages

of the minutes book is also placed on record as

Ext.R1(b).

4

4. Heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and also the learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners

would submit that it is absolutely without any

valid reason that the 1^st

respondent Joint

Registrar has issued Ext.P1 order invoking his

powers under Section 65 of the Act. The learned

counsel would also submit that before issuing

Ext.P1 order, the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar

has to arrive at a satisfaction as to the grounds

necessitating the issuance of such an order. The

learned counsel would point out that regarding

purchase of land and building, permission has

already been granted by the Joint Registrar of

Co-operative Societies, vide Ext.P4 order dated

11.01.2016, and as such, the 1^st respondent is not

justified in invoking his powers under Section 65

of the Act by issuing Ext.P1 order.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader,

after making reference to the averments in the

5

counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st

respondent and also Ext.R1(a) inquiry report of

the Assistant Registrar, would contend that no

interference is warranted on Ext.P1 order.

7. Having considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel on both sides, this Court

finds that the power of the 1^st respondent Joint

Registrar to issue Ext.P1 order invoking the

powers under Section 65 of the Act is not under

challenge in this writ petition. The contention

raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

is that on the facts and circumstances of the

case, the 1^st respondent Joint Registrar was not

justified in invoking his powers by issuing an

order like Ext.P1. This Court, in exercise of the

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is not sitting in appeal over Ext.P1 order

of the 1^st

respondent Joint Registrar. The

adjudication of the factual issues as to the

grounds stated in Ext.P1 order falls outside the

scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the

6

Constitution of India.

8. A reading of Ext.P1 order and also

Ext.R1(a) report of the Assistant Registrar would

show that