Board of Management of Payangadi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd & Payangadi Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Kannur; Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies (G), Payyanur; Sudheesh K; Rahul P.P; Santhosh Kumar Payyannur Unit Inspector, Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (G), Payyanur

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 4[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943 WA NO. 1665 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27227/2021 OF HIGH COURT ``` ## **`OF KERALA`** ## **`APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF PAYANGADI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD C-975, PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, M.P UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT PANCHAMI, KANDONTHAR, KANNUR DISTRICT.`** - **`2 PAYANGADI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD C-975 PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER (GEO) SUNIL PRAKASH N.G`** - **`BY ADVS.`** - **`P.V.BABY A.N.SANTHOSH`** ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G) KANNUR 670 001`** - **`2 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307`** - **`3 SUDHEESH K`** - **`S/O. SUMITHRAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, VELLACHAL, VENGARA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT 676 304`** - **`4 RAHUL P.P`** - **`S/O. MANOHARAN, POONKAVU, CHERUKUNNU RAILWAY STATION P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 301`** - **`5 SANTHOSH KUMAR PAYYANNUR UNIT INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OEPRATIVE SOCIETIES (G) PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SR.GP.V.K.SUNIL ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..2.. ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 4[th] day of January, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.12.2021 in W.P.(C) No.27227 of 2021. The appellants were the petitioners in the writ petition. Parties and documents are referred to in this judgment for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition. 2. The petitioners are the Chairman and the General Manager respectively of a Co-operative Society (the Society) registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). On the basis of a complaint alleging irregularities in the appointments made and promotions effected in the Society, the first respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, exercising the powers of the Registrar over the Society, called for a report from the Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..3.. concerned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and ordered an inspection of the books of the Society under Section 66(1) of the Act. Ext.P4 is the order issued by the first respondent in this regard. Ext.P4 order was challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition mainly on the ground that insofar as the complaint, on the basis of which the inspection was ordered, was one concerning the appointments made and promotions effected in the Society, the remedy of the complainant lies before the competent authority under Section 69 of the Act and an inspection in terms of Section 66(1) of the Act cannot be ordered in respect of the same. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition at the admission stage itself taking the view that only disputes relating to appointments and promotions between the Society and its employees or between the employees of the Society would lie before the competent authority under Section 69 of the Act and there is no impediment in law in ordering an inspection under Section 66(1) of the Act in respect of the same. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..4.. ## as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contention raised before the learned Single Judge. To bring home the point, the learned counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in **Raveendran v. State of Kerala,** 2007 (3) KLT 558 and in **FACT Service Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Balakrishna Menon and others,** 2007 (3) ILR (Kerala) 483. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Ext.P4 order was not one issued in accordance with the mandatory requirements contained in Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the Rules). According to the learned counsel, Ext.P4 order is liable to be set aside on that ground as well. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in **Cheranellur Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Deputy Registrar** , 1976 KLT 353 and in **Ellakkal Service Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala** , 1997 (2) KLT 85, in support of the said contention. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader argued that only disputes between the parties mentioned in Section 69(1) of the Act are liable to be resolved in the manner provided in that sub-section, and the said sub-section does not Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..5.. preclude the competent authority from exercising the powers under Section 66(1) of the Act in respect of the appointments and promotions made in a Society. It was also argued by the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P4 order is one issued in compliance with the provisions contained in Rule 66 of the Rules. It was, however, conceded by the learned Government Pleader that there is no provision in Ext.P4 order as to the costs of the inspection. According to the learned Government Pleader, a provision for costs of inspection is made only when orders are issued under Sections 65 and 66 of the Act on applications referred to therein and provision for costs is not made in orders issued under Sections 65 and 66 when such orders are issued suo motu by the Registrar. It was argued by the learned Government Pleader therefore that merely for the reason that there is no provision in Ext.P4 order as regards the costs of inspection, it cannot be said that the order is vitiated. 6. We have examined the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on either side. 7. Ext.P4 order indicates that the inspection ordered therein pertains, among others, to the appointments made and promotions effected in the Society. Section 69 of Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..6.. ## the Act reads thus: “ **69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar** .-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises,- (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, a past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between the society and any other society; or (e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it ; or (f) between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person; or (g) between the society and a surety of a member, past member, deceased member or employee or a person, other than a member, who has been granted a loan by the society, whether such a surety is or is not a member of the society; or (h) between the society and a creditor of the society; such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under section 70A, in the Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..7.. case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall also be deemed to be disputes, namely:- (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor, where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, as a result of the default of the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or any officer of the society; **Explanation** :- A dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election; (d) any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of Sec. 80, including their promotion and inter se seniority. (3) No dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or an officer of the society shall be entertained by the Co-operative Arbitration Court unless it is referred to it within one month from the date of the election. Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..8.. (4) All monetary disputes mentioned in Schedule III to the Act shall be filed within the time limit specified in the said Schedule.” It is placing reliance on clause (d) of Section 69(2), the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the dispute raised in the complaint on the basis of which inspection was ordered under Section 66(1) is a matter that falls within the scope of Section 69(1) and that the Registrar has no jurisdiction to order an inspection under Section 66(1) in respect of such a matter. As evident from the extracted provision, Section 69(2) only provides that the matters provided therein shall be deemed to be disputes for the purpose of Section 69(1). In other words, only disputes between the parties made mention of in Section 69(1) in respect of any of the matters covered by Section 69(2) are liable to be resolved in terms of Section 69(1). The petitioners have no case that the subject matter of inspection ordered in terms of Section 66(1) is in respect of a dispute exists between any one of the categories of persons made mention of in Section 69(1) in relation to the employment of officers and servants. As such, there is absolutely no substance in the argument advanced by the petitioners in this Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..9.. regard. The decisions of this Court in **Raveendran** and **FACT Service Co-operative Bank Ltd** do not deal with the question raised by the petitioners. Needless to say, the contention of the petitioners that the competent authority exercising power under Section 66(1) cannot order an inspection in respect of the appointments made and promotions effected in a Society is liable to be rejected and we do so. 8. The contention remains to be addressed is the contention that Ext.P4 order is not one issued in compliance with Rule 66 of the Rules. The argument is that the specific point or points on which inspection is to be made and the provision for costs of inspection as provided for in Rule 66(1) are absent in Ext.P4 order. Rule 66(1) reads thus: “ **66. Procedure for the conduct of inquiry and inspection:-** (1) (i) An order, authorising inquiry under Section 65 or inspection under Section 66 shall among other things, contain the following: - (a) the name of the society whose affairs are to be inquired into or whose books of accounts are to be inspected: (b) the name of the person authorised to conduct the inquiry or inspection; (c) in specific point or points on which the inquiry or inspection is to be made, the period within which the inquiry or inspection is to be completed and report submitted to the Registrar, Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..10.. (d) costs of inquiry or inspection; (e) any other matter relating or pertaining to the inquiry or inspection. ” The extracted Rule provides that an order authorising inspection under Section 66 of the Act shall, among other things, contain (a) the name of the Society whose books are to be inspected, (b) the name of the person authorised to conduct the inspection, (c) the specific points on which inspection is to be made and the period within which the inspection is to be completed, (d) costs of inspection and (e) any other matter relating or pertaining to the inspection. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 order reads thus: “ - , പഴയങ്ങാടിഅർബ്ബൻകോ ഓപ്പറേറ്റീവ്ബാങ്കിൽഅറ്റൻഡർ പ്യൂൺ എന്നീ തസ്തികയിലുള്ള ഓരോ ഒഴിവിലേക നിയമനം നടത്തുന്നതിനായി അപേക്ഷ ക്ഷണിച്ചുകൊണ പത്ര പരസ്യം , 24-9-2020, 6-10നൽകുകയും ആയതിനുള്ളറാങകപട്ടിക 2020 എന്നീ തീയതികളിൽ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്ുയുണ്ടായെന്നും, ഓരോ വിജ്ഞാപനത്തിൽ വിഭാഗത്തിലും ഒരു ഒഴിവു മാത്രമേ , / നികത്തുന്നതിന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുള്ളുവെന്നും എന്നാൽ പ്യൂൺ നൈറ വാച 8 , ചമാൻ തസ്തികയിലേക പേരുടെയും അറ്റൻഡർ തസ്തികയിലേക 6 പേരുടെയുംലിസറ്റതയ്യാറാക്കിഅതിൽനിന്നും 6 , പേരെനിയമിച്ചുവെന്നും വിജ്ഞാപനത്തിൽവരാവുന്നഒഴിവിലേക , ഈലിസ്റ്റിൽനിന്നുംനിയമനംനടത്തുമെ്ന്നോ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചറാങ ലിസ്റ്റിന്റെകാലാവധിഎത്രകാലത്തേക്കാണെ്ന്നോരേഖപ്പെടുത്താതെ ധൃതിപിടിച സ്വന്തക്കാരെ തിരുകിക്കയറ്റി അധിക നിയമനം നടത്തിയത് ഭരണസമിതി റാങ ലിസ അംഗീരിച്ചിട്ടില്ല എന്നും, ഇന്റർവ്യൂവിന്റെത തൊട് ത്ത ദിവസം റാങ്കു ലിസ , പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിക്ുയുണ്ടായെന്നും ഇപ്രകാരംനിയമനംനടത്തിയത് , സഹകരണനിയമം, , വൻതുകകോഴവാങ്ങിയാണെന്നും ചട്ടം ഭരണ സമിതി ഭരണഘടനയുടെ ലംഘനവുമാണ് Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..11.. , നിയമനം നടത്തിയിട്ടുള്ളതെന്നും അനധികൃത മൂലം ഉദ്യദ്യോഗാർഥികളുടെഭാവിയിലുള്ളഅവസരമാണ്നഷ്ടമാകുന്നതെന്നും ആയതിനാൽമേൽനിയമനംസംബന്ധിച്ചുവിശദമായഅന്വേഷണം നടത്തിഅനധികൃതനിയമനംനടത്തിയവരെപിരിച്ചുവിടണമെന്നും ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടുകൊണടസൂചന (1) പ്രകാരംപരാതിസമർപ്പിച്ചിട്ടുണ. -1, / വാച ബാങ്കിന്റെ അറ്റൻഡർ പ്യൂൺ നൈറ ചമാൻ തസ്തികയിൽ 5 ഒഴിവുകൾ ഉണ്ടായിരിക്കെയാണ് 5-5-2020 ൽ. ചേർന്നബാങകഭരണസമിതിയുടെതീരുമാനംനമ്പർ 6 പ്രകാരംഒരു , / വാച നിയമനം അറ്റൻഡർ പ്യൂൺ നൈറ ചമാൻ തസ്തികയിലേക , നടത്തുന്നതിന് അപേക്ഷ ക്ഷണിക്കുന്നതിന് തീരുമാനിച്ചതെന്നും , ആയതുപ്രകാരംമാതൃഭൂമി മലയാളമനനോരമദിനപത്രങ്ങളിൽ , പരസ്യംനൽകുകയും പ്രസ് വിജ്ഞാപനത്തിൽറാങകലിസ്റ്റിന്റെ , കാലാവധിഎത്രയാണെ്ന്നോ ഭാവിയിൽഉണ്ടാകുന്നഒഴിവുറാങ ലിസ്റ്റിൽനിന നിർത്തുമെന്ന കാര്യം പത്ര പരസ്യത്തിൽ . സൂചിപ്പിച്ചിരുന്നില്ല എന്നും കണ്ടെത്തിയിട്ടുണ നിയമനവുമായി , ബന്ധപ്പെടടസബ്കമ്മിറ്റിരൂപീകരിച്ചിട്ടില്ലഎന്നും എഴുത്തുപരീക്ഷ നടത്തുന്നതിനായി പുറമെ നിന്നുള്ള ഏജൻസിയെ ചുമതലപ്പെടുത്തുന്നതിന് 6-8-2020 ന് ബാങ ഭരണസമിതി ചെയർമാനെ ചുമതലപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും, എന്നാൽ ഏത് ഏജൻസിയെയാണ് ചുമതലപ്പെടുത്തിയത് എന എവിടെയും രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുമില്ലഎന്നുംകണ്ടെത്തിയിട്ടുണ . MECA സ്കൂളിൽ വെച ചപരീക്ഷനടത്തുകയുംഅതേസ്കൂളിൽനിന്നുള്ളഅധ്യാപകർ ഇൻവിജിലേറ്റർസ് ആയും, കോട്ടയം റോബർട ഓവൻ സ്ഥാപനത്തിലെ ജീവനക്കാരനെ സൂപ്പർ വൈസർ ആയും . നിയമിച്ചുകൊണ്ടാണ്പരീക്ഷനടത്തിയിട്ടുള്ളത് എഴുത്തുപരീക്ഷക്കുള്ള . കാൾലെറ്റർഅയച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത് ബാങ്കിന്റെജനറൽമാനേജർആണ് / വാച വാചാ പ്യൂൺ നൈറ ചമാൻ തസ്തികയിലേക്കുള്ള പരീക്ഷ എഴുത്തുപരീക്ഷനടത്തിയതീയതിയിൽവൈകുന്നേരം 3 മണിക തന്നെ നടത്തിയതായും റി്പ്പോർട ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ. അറ്റൻഡർ തസ്തികയിലേക്കുള്ളവാചാപരീക്ഷ 5-10-2020 ന് രാവിലെ 11 മണിമുതൽ ബാങ ഹാളിൽ മുഴുവൻ ഭരണസമിതി അംഗങ്ങളും , 182 (4) ന് ചേർന്നാണ്നടത്തിയതെന്നും സഹകരണനിയമംചട്ടം വിരുദ്ധമായി 11 മുതൽ 18 വരെ മാർക നൽകിയിട്ടുണ്ടെന്നും . അന്വേഷത്തിൽകണ്ടെത്തിയതായിറി്പ്പോർടടചെയ്തിട്ടുണ അറ്റൻഡർ 6 , / ലിസ്റ്റിൽ പേരെഉൾപ്പെടുത്തികൊണ്ടും പ്യൂൺ നൈററവാചചമാൻ ലിസ്റ്റിൽ 8 പേരെ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തികൊണ്ടുമാണ് റാങ ലിസ . അന പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ചത് നതന്നെഅറ്റൻഡർതസ്തികയിലെറാങ , .എ. പിക , ലിസ്റ്റിൽനിന്നും ഒന്നാംനമ്പർകാരനായജിഷ്ണു കനേരിട്ടും തപാൽമുഖേനയുംനിയമംഉത്തരവ്നൽകുകയുണ്ടായി. 5-10-2020 ലെതീരുമാനം 6 പ്രകാരംപ്യൂൺ/നൈററവാചചമാൻതസ്തികയിലെ , II ഒന്നാംനമ്പർകാരനും അതേഭരണസമിതിതീരുമാനത്തിന്റെ Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..12.. നമ്പർതീരുമാനപ്രകാരംപ്രസ് റാങകലിസ്റ്റിലെ 2, 3, 4, 5 എന്നീ റാങ . ാരെകൂടിനിയമിക്കുന്നതിന്തീരുമാനമെടുക്ുയുംചെയ്തിരുന്നു സഹകരണ നിയമം ചട്ടം 185 (10) ന് വിരുദ്ധമായി പ്യൂൺ , . തസ്തികയിൽജ ജോലിചെയ്യുന്നനന്ദുകൃഷ്ണൻ ശ്രീമതി വീണകൃഷ്ണൻ എന്നിവർകകക്ളർകകതസ്തികയിലേകകക്രമവിരുദ്ധമായിജ ജോലികയറ്റം നൽകിയതായും റി്പ്പോർട ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ. ബാങ്കിൽ നടത്തിയ നിയമനത്തിലുംപ്ര പ്രൊമമോഷനിലുംപ്രഥമദൃഷടാ ക്രമക്കേട്ഉള്ളതായും . അന്വേഷണത്തിൽകണ്ടെത്തിയതായിറി്പ്പോർടടചെയ്തിട്ടുണ മേൽ നിയമനങ്ങളിലെ ക്രമക്കേടുകളുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട കൂടുതൽ പരിശശോധന ആവശ്യമാണെന സ്വയംബ ബോധ്യപ്പെട്ട താഴെ സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ പറയും പ്രകാരമുള്ള ഉത്തരവ് . പുറപ്പെടുവിക്കുന്നു ഉതരവ് നമ്പർ സി 975 പഴയങ്ങാടി അർബ്ബൻ സഹകരണ ബാങ്കിൽ പ്യൂൺ/നൈററവാചചമാൻഅറ്റൻഡർഎന്നീതസ്തികകളിൽനടത്തിയ നിയമനവുമമായിബന്ധപ്പെടടകേരളസഹകരനിയമംവകുപ 66 പ്രകാരമുള്ള അന്വേഷണംനടത്തുന്നതിന്പയ്യന്നൂർ അസിസ്റ്റന രജിസ്‌ട്രാർ (ജനറൽ) ഓഫീസിലെപയ്യന്നൂർയൂണിററഇൻസ്പെക്ടർ . ശ്രീ സന്തന്തോഷ്കുമാറിനെപരിശശോധനഉദ്യദ്യോഗസ്ഥനായിനിയമിച്ചു . ഇതിനാൽഉത്തരവാകുന്നു അന്വേഷണവിഷയങ്ങൾ 1. , , ബാങ്കിന്റെഘടനയും പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളും 2. പ്യൂൺ/നൈററവാചചമാൻതസ്തികയിൽനടത്തിയനിയമനം. 2. . അറ്റൻഡർതസ്തികയിൽനടത്തിയനിയമനം 3. സംഘത്തിൽഅനധികൃതമായിനടത്തിയഉദ്യദ്യോഗക്കയറ്റം . 4. അന്വേഷണ ഉദ്യദ്യോഗസ്ഥന് ഉചിതമെന തോന് ബാങ പ്രവർത്തനവുമായിബന്ധപ്പെട്ടമറ്റുവിഷയങ്ങൾ അന്വേഷണം പൂർത്തിയാക്കി ഒരു മാസത്തിനുള്ളിൽ റി്പ്പോർട സമർപ്പിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്.” The argument of the petitioners is that Section 66(1) provides only for an inspection for ascertaining the point or points to be specified in the order and a roving inspection of the books of Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..13.. the Society is neither contemplated nor provided for under the said provision and as such, the order should specify unambiguously the point or points on which inspection is to be made and the point or points on which inspection is ordered is absent in Ext.P4 order. If one reads the points on which the inspection is ordered in terms of Ext.P4 in the background of the facts stated therein, there is absolutely no scope for any ambiguity as to the point or points on which inspection is ordered in terms of the said order. **Cheranellur Co-operative Society Ltd.** is a case where an inquiry under Section 65 was ordered without specifying the point or points on which the inquiry is ordered. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the case. Of course, there is no provision in Ext.P4 order as to the costs of inspection. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the requirements in Rule 66 are mandatory, in the absence of any provision in Ext.P4 order as to the costs of inspection, the order is vitiated. True, in **Ellakkal Service Co-operative Bank** , the learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that the provisions in Rule 66 are mandatory. There is no pleading in the writ petition as to the prejudice caused to the petitioners on Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..14.. account of the absence of any provision in Ext.P4 order as to the costs of inspection. As such, even assuming that the requirements in Section 66(1) are mandatory, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that the order is bad. At any rate, in the absence of any pleading as to the prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioners on account of the absence of any provision as to costs in Ext.P4 order, we do not think that it is a case where this Court should exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in favour of the petitioners [See **Debotosh Pal Choudhury v. Punjab National Bank** , (2002) 8 SCC 68 and **State v. N.S.Gnaneswaran** , (2013) 3 SCC 594] . 9. That apart, it is now trite that at the stage of ordering an inspection, all that is contemplated is the subjective satisfaction of the Registrar of the need to order an inspection. According to us, the petitioners cannot be said to be persons aggrieved at the stage of the proceedings merely on the basis of the apprehension, howsoever strong, that the proceedings is likely to culminate in an order prejudicial to their interests. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable also. Writ Appeal No.1665 of 2021 ..15.. The writ appeal, in the circumstances, is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** **Sd/C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** Ds 22.12.2021