K. Sivasankaran (President, Managing Committee, Chendamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.) v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) & Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, North Paravur, and others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA THURSDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, ``` ``` 1943 ``` ``` WA NO. 232 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2474/2022 OF HIGH ``` ## **`COURT OF KERALA`** ## **`APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER:`** ``` K SIVASANKARAN, AGED 75 YEARS PRESIDENT, THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, THE CHENDAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.132, CHENDAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683512. ``` ``` BY ADVS. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) ARUN CHANDRAN NISHA GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),`** - **`OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.`** - **`2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.`** - **`3 THE UNIT INSPECTOR/INQUIRY OFFICER APPOINTED TO CONDUCT THE INQUIRY U/S 65[1] [A] OF THE KCS ACT,`** - **`OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.`** ``` BY SR.GP SRI.V.K.SUNIL ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 2 :- ## _C.R._ ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.S.SUDHA, JJ.** **----------------------------------------------Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 24[th] day of February, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.** This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No.2474 of 2022. The appellant was the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. The appellant is the President of a Primary Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). As per Ext.P1 order, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies exercising powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Act over the Society of which the appellant is the President, ordered an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Act into the loan transactions of the Society commencing from 01.01.2020 and also into the financial structure and stability of the Society. Ext.P1 order was issued on the basis of the reports dated Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 3 :- 14.09.2021 and 12.11.2021 of the Unit Inspector attached to the office of the concerned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies disclosing the irregularities noticed in the course of his inspections in the Society. The writ petition was one instituted challenging Ext.P1 order. Having regard to the materials on record, the learned Single Judge found that the satisfaction arrived at by the Joint Registrar for ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Act cannot be said to be baseless or unfounded. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge and hence this writ appeal. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that in the absence of any of the reports and applications referred to in clauses (b) to (f) of Section 65(1) of the Act, an inquiry under Section 65(1) could be ordered by the Joint Registrar only "on his own motion" as provided for in clause (a) of Section 65(1) on his subjective satisfaction that it is essential to order an inquiry under that provision into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society. The learned counsel elaborated the said submission pointing out that when an inquiry is ordered by the Joint Registrar Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 4 :- invoking clause (a) of Section 65(1), the order should reflect the materials, on the basis of which the Joint Registrar has arrived at the subjective satisfaction as to the requirement of ordering an inquiry under that provision and the same shall be based on materials independently collected by him. It was argued by the learned counsel that Ext.P1 order does not disclose the materials independently sourced by the Joint Registrar and the said order was issued solely based on the reports of the Unit Inspector, which is per se illegal and unsustainable. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court in **Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar (General), District Co-operative Society,** 2018 (2) KHC 143, in support of the said contention. Placing reliance on the averments in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the writ petition, it was also contended by the learned counsel that the exercise of the power under Section 65(1) in the State is always selective, having regard to the political affiliation of the managing committee, and the power is invoked only with a view to find grounds for superseding the management of societies which do not owe allegiance to the political parties in power in the State. According to the learned counsel, the Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 5 :- impugned order is therefore, vitiated by malice as well. 4. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 5. Section 65 of the Act reads thus: “ **65.Inquiry by Registrar** .- (1) The Registrar may,- (a) on his own motion; or (b) on an inquiry report of the Vigilance Officer appointed under section 68A; or (c) on a report of the Director of Co-operative Audit appointed under section 63; or (d) on an application by the majority of the members of the committee of the society, or by not less than one third of the quorum for the general body meeting, whichever is less; or (e) on an application by the apex society or financing bank of which such society is a member; or (f) on an application of a society to which the society concerned is affiliated,- hold an enquiry by himself or by a person authorized by order in writing, into the constitution, working and financial condition of the society, if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do. (2) The Registrar or the person authorised by him under subsection (1) shall, for the purpose of an inquiry under this section have the following powers, namely:— (a) he shall, at all reasonable times, have free access to the books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties belonging to, or in the custody of the society and may summon any person in possession of or responsible for the custody of any such books, accounts, documents, securities, cash or other properties, to produce the same at any place at the headquarters of the society. Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 6 :- or at any branch thereof or where there is no working office for the society, at the office of the Registrar or at the office of any of his subordinate officers; (b) he may summon any person who, he has reason to believe, has knowledge of any of the affairs of the society to appear before him at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof and may examine such person on oath; and (c) (i) he may, notwithstanding any rule or bye law specifying the period of notice for a general body meeting of the society himself call a general body meeting or require the President or Secretary of the society to call a general body meeting at such time and place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof, to determine such matters as may be directed by him; (ii) any meeting called under sub-clause (i) shall have all the powers of a general body meeting called under the byelaws of the society. (3)When an inquiry is made under this section, the Registrar may communicate the result of the inquiry to the financing bank, if any, to the society to which such society is affiliated and to the Circle Co-operative Union. (4)When an inquiry made under this section reveals only minor defects which in the opinion of the Registrar, can be remedied by the society, he shall communicate the result of the inquiry to the society and the society, if any, to which that society is affiliated. He shall also direct the society or its officers to take such action within the time specified therein to rectify the defects disclosed in such inquiry. Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 7 :- (5)The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months which period may at the discretion of the Registrar and for reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended from time to time, so however that the aggregate period shall not in any way, exceed one year. (6) If the Registrar, on completion of the inquiry finds that, there is a major defect in the constitution or working or financial condition of the society, he may initiate action in accordance with the provisions of section 32. As seen from the extracted provision, the Registrar is empowered to order an inquiry under Section 65(1) under any one of the six circumstances enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 65(1). As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the circumstances enumerated in clauses (b) to (f) are absent in the case on hand and the impugned order is issued by the Joint Registrar invoking the power under clause (a). As noted, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that when an inquiry is ordered by the Joint Registrar invoking clause (a) of Section 65(1), the same shall not be based on materials provided by others, but it shall be based on materials independently sourced by him. The argument is obviously in the light of the expression "on his own motion" contained in clause (a) of Section 65(1). 6. Let us therefore, first examine the scope of the Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 8 :- expression “on his own motion”. A Full Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in **Bangalore Grain Merchants Association v. The District Registrar for Societies and Others** , 2001 (1) KCCR 292, had occasion to consider the meaning of the expression “on his own motion” in the context of the enquiry provided for under Section 25(1) of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. It was held in the said case that the expression “on his own motion” although means “on one's own initiative” and implies application of mind and formation of one's own opinion, it does not matter how and from what source he gets the information and it does not mean that the authority conferred with such power should eschew from consideration the information or material furnished from external sources and should look into the information collected by him on self effort. It was also held in the said case that the only requirement of law is that on the basis of information and materials gathered either on its own initiative or received from other sources, the competent authority has to come to a conclusion on an active application of mind, whether to take up the enquiry or not, and that he shall not act mechanically at the behest of others without independent application of mind. Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 9 :- ## The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads thus: “9. Now, we come to the more crucial and controversial question i.e., what is the meaning and import of the expression 'on his own motion' and what is its inter-relation to the immediately following clauses of the same Sub-section. There could be no doubt, that the expression 'on his own motion' is synonymous to suo-motu, which according to the dictionary means, "on one's own initiative". 'Own motion' obviously implies application of mind and formation of one's own opinion. It does not matter how and from what source he gets information. But it does not mean that the authority conferred with such power should eschew from consideration information or material furnished by external sources and should look to the information collected by him own self-effort. The exercise of powers suomotu or on one's own motion, cannot and ought not to be construed in a narrow sense and in a sense which defeats the salutary purpose of the provision. No fetters can be placed on the specified authority from the stand point of source material on which it should exercise the power. An authority exercising the suo- motu power is not debarred from obtaining informations and materials from various sources. The only requirement is that on the basis of such informations and materials gathered either on its own initiative or received from other sources, the concerned authority has to come to the conclusion, on an active application of mind whether to take up the enquiry or not. Undoubtedly, the decision must be his own. He cannot mechanically act at the behest of some other person or authority without independent application of mind to arrive at a conclusion on the need and expediency of holding an enquiry. It is not argued before us nor can it be disputed that the suomotu exercise of power does not cease to be such merely because a member of the public or someone in the know of things brings relevant facts to the notice of the prescribed Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 10 :- authority, in this case, the Registrar. The Registrar, on a consideration of such facts has to decide whether it is a fit case warranting initiation of enquiry in the over-all interests of the society. The decision must be his and the decision must of course be based on relevant factors, but there is no limitation as to the sources by which he should be prompted to action.” After holding that the expression 'on his own motion' is synonymous to 'suo-motu', the Full Bench has also quoted with approval in the said case a passage from an earlier judgement of the same Court in **Muslim Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies,** ILR 1990 Karnataka 3705, dealing with "suo motu power". The said passage reads thus: "Naturally for exercise of suo-motu powers also, there must be some source of information for the Registrar to do so. Such information may come to the Registrar of the Societies during his inspection of a Society or by any other means including written complaint by a member.” 7. In this context, it is also apposite to mention that similar view has been taken by this Court in **K.G.Sadasivan v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,** 2008 (1) KHC 556, in the context of the expression “on his own motion” contained in Section 66(2) of the Act dealing with the power of the Registrar to inspect or direct any Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 11 :- person authorised by him by order in writing in his behalf to inspect the books of the society. The question considered in that case was whether the Registrar would be justified in invoking the power conferred on him under Section 66(2) “on his own motion”, on the basis of a complaint received by him and it was held in the said case that it is not within the province of judicial review to search for the source of the material which triggered a suo motu action. It was clarified in the said case that if a member of a society makes a complaint and if by that complaint, the Registrar is notified of certain fact situation which triggers action under Section 66(2), that procedure is only one which could be treated as the Registrar acting on his own motion. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads thus: 6. On to the question of jurisdiction, when the Joint Registrar or Registrar of Cooperative Societies has the power to act on his own motion, i.e, suo motu, it is not within the province of the judicial review to search for the source of the material which triggered a suo motu action. The plethora of instances which have been considered by this Court would show that material information may reach the Registrar of Cooperative Societies or the Joint Registrar, including from non traceable sources. If a member of a society makes a complaint and if by that complaint, the Registrar is notified of certain fact situation which triggers action under Section Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 12 :- 66(2), that procedure is only one which could be treated as suo motu, the Registrar or Joint Registrar acting on his own motion. The provision that such an inspection under S.66(2) can be commenced on an application of a creditor of a society does not place any embargo on the power of the Joint Registrar or Registrar to act as aforesaid.” That apart, having regard to the object of the inquiry under Section 65(1), viz, to protect the interests of the society and its members, if it is held that a competent authority exercising the power under Section 65(1) could order an inquiry under that provision only based on independent materials sourced by him and shall not act based on materials provided in the complaints received, or the reports called for on complaints, or on reports submitted by subordinate officers, having regard to the large numbers of societies placed under the administrative control of the Registrar, Section 65(1) would be a dead letter, incapable of enforcement and the object of the same would be defeated. We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in **Bangalore Grain Merchants Association** and we are of the view that the very same meaning shall be given to the expression "on his own motion" contained in clause (a) to Section 65 (1) of the Act also. Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 13 :- 8. As in the case on hand, **Melukkara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.** is also a case where the decision of the Joint Registrar to order an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Act based on the report called for from an officer subordinate to him on a complaint lodged by a member of the society was impugned on the ground that the order in this regard was one issued without there being any material on record justifying it and without there being any subjective satisfaction that such an action was necessary. It was held in the said case that the exercise of the power by the Registrar on his own motion under Section 65(1) shall be with a greater circumspection and circumscription and that he shall not solely and perforce be guided by recommendations of the officers subordinate to him. It is apposite to mention that even in **Melukkara Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.,** this Court clarified that there is no impediment in law in ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) based on the reports of the subordinate officers of the competent authority. The dictum in the said case is consistent with the view we have expressed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment. 9. True, it was observed in the said case that if a Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 14 :- report of a subordinate officer is taken note of by the Registrar for the purpose of ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1), it is obligatory on the part of the Registrar to personally satisfy himself by evaluation and assessment of all the relevant records which should have guided him to a valid conclusion as to the requirement of an inquiry under that provision. The said observation cannot be understood to hold that the competent authority ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) should satisfy himself that there are defects in the constitution, working or financial condition of the society before ordering the inquiry, for, the purpose of inquiry is to ascertain as to whether there are any defects in the constitution, working or financial condition of the society. As noted, the only requirement of law in the matter of ordering an inquiry on the basis of information and materials gathered either on its own initiative or received from other sources is that the competent authority has to come to a conclusion on an active application of mind, whether to order the inquiry or not, and that he shall not act mechanically at the behest of others without independent application of mind. In other words, what is expected from the competent authority in the matter of ordering an inquiry on the Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 15 :- basis of information and materials gathered either on his own initiative or received from other sources is that there shall be an independent and active application of mind on the question as to whether there shall be an inquiry or not under Section 65(1) on the basis of the said materials. 10. Let us now examine the order impugned in the writ petition. It is seen that in the inspection conducted by the Unit Inspector at the Society on 13.09.2021, various irregularities relating to the loans granted by the Society such as want of security, insufficiency of security, acceptance of security otherwise than in accordance with the norms etc. were found out, and the matter was reported to the Joint Registrar. Later, in compliance with the direction issued by the Director of Co-operative Audit, the Unit Inspector has inspected the Society again on 08.10.2021 and serious irregularities were revealed in the said inspection as well. The irregularities noticed in the inspection held on 08.10.2021 were also brought to the notice of the Joint Registrar. In the report filed by the Unit Inspector to the Joint Registrar in this regard, it is stated, among others, that loan applications were found incomplete, that there was no repayment at all in several loans, that the Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 16 :- loans were granted without due execution of Gahans (mortgage) etc. It is seen that it is on the basis of the reports of the Unit Inspector and the various documents appended to the reports, the Joint Registrar has ordered the inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Act. The relevant portion of the order reads thus : "വടക്കൻ പറവൂർ അസിസ്റ്റൻറ് റെജിസ്ട്രാർ (ജനറൽ) ആഫീസിലെ ചേന്ദമംഗലംയൂണിററഇൻസ്‌പെക്ടർചേന്ദമംഗലംസർവീസ്സഹകരണബാങകക്ലിപ്തം നമ്പർ 132 ൽ 13.09.2021 ന് നടത്തിയമിന്നൽപരിശ ോധനയിൽബാങ്കിലെ വായ്പ വിതരണത്തിൽ അതിഗുരുതരമായ ക്രെമക്കേടുകൾ നടന്നിട്ടുള്ളതായി കണ്ടെത്തുകയും, പ്രസ്‌തുതവിവരങ്ങളടങ്ങിയറിപ്പോർടടപരാമർശം (1) പ്രകാരംമേൽ നടപടികൾക്കായി സഹകരണ സംഘംജ ജോയിന റെജിസ്ട്രാർ (ജനറൽ)ക . സമർപ്പിക്ുയുംചെയ്തിട്ടുണ ബാങ്കിൻറെ ഓഡിററപൂർത്തീകരണവുമായിബന്ധപെട്ടു പരാമർശം (2) പ്രകാരംകത ലഭിച്ചതിന്റെഅടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ 08.10.2021 ൽ ചേന്ദമംഗലം യൂണിറ ഇൻസ്‌പെക്ടർ ബാങ്കിൽ പരിശ ോധന നടത്തുകയും ടി പരിശ ോധനയുടെ റിപപോർട്ടുകൾ സഹകരണ സംഘംജ ജോയിന റെജിസ്ട്രാർ (ജനറൽ)ക സമർപ്പിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതുമാണ്. യൂണിറ ഇൻസ്‌പെക്ടർ നടത്തിയ പരിശ ോധനയുടെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലുള്ളറിപ്പോർട്ടിൽടിബാങ്കിലെ 14508 നമ്പർ അംഗംഅലികുഞ്ഞു , 24160 നമ്പർഅംഗംപ്രീജഎൻജി, 27000 നമ്പർഅംഗം ഷൈ ബിടിഎസ്, 30025 നമ്പർഅംഗംഷിബിൻകുമാർ, 30024 നമ്പർഅംഗം c/o സലിംകുമാർഎന്നിവർക 25 ലക്ഷംരൂപവീതംവായ്പഅനുവദിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളതുംമേൽ വായ്പകൾക്കെല്ലാം തന്നെ നിലം വിഭാഗത്തിൽപെട്ട വസ്തു ആണ് ഈട് നൽകിയിരിക്കുന്നത്എന്നുംടിവായ്പകൾക്കുള്ളഅപേക്ഷകൾഎല്ലാംഅപൂർണ്ണമാണ്‌ എന്നുംടിവായ്പകളിൽതിരിച്ചടവ്ഒന്നുംകാണുന്നില്ലഎന്നുംബാങ്കിന്റെപ്രവർത്തന പരിധിക്കു പുറത്തുള്ളവർക ബാങ്കിൽ അംഗത്വം നൽകിയിട്ടുണ എന്നും ബാങ്കിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തന പരിധിക്കു പുറത്തുള്ള നിലം വിഭാഗത്തിലുള്ള വസ്തു ഈട് വെച പല വ്യക്തികൾകകവായ്പഅനുവദിച്ചതായും ടിനടപടിബാങകഭരണസമിതിയുടെ ഗുരുതര . വീഴ്ചയായുംറിപ്പോർടടചെയ്തിട്ടുണ ബാങ്കിൽ 30.06.2020 ൽ 8 വായ്പകളായിലായി 25 ലക്ഷംരൂപവീതംവായ്പ അനുവദിച്ചതായും ടി വായ്പകളിലെ ഗഹാൻ പരിശ ോധിച്ചതിൽ തൃശൂർ ജില്ലയിലെ അന്നമനടസബ്റെജിസ്ട്രാർഓഫീസിൽരജിസ്റ്റർചെയ് ംബാങ്കിലെ സിക്ലാസ് Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 17 :- മെമ്പർ ഷഹീർ എന്നയാളുടെ 74/2008 നമ്പർ ആധാരവും ജലജഗ ഗോപൻ എന്നയാളുടെ 634 / 2020 നമ്പർ ആധാരവും എന്നിവയാണ് ഈടായി . നൽകിയിട്ടുള്ളത്എന്നുംറിപ്പോർട ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ ആധാരത്തിന്റെപകർപ യൂണിറ ഇൻസെ പ്റ്റർപരിശ ോധിച്ചതിന്റെഅടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ ടിവസ്തുഎല്ലാംതന്നെനിലം തോട്, വിഭാഗത്തിൽഉൾപ്പെട്ടതാണ്എന്നുംനാലുഅതിരുംത നിലംഎന്നിവആണ് എന്നുംറിപ്പോർടടചെയ്തിട്ടുണ. ഇതുകൂടാതെ 26.06.2020 ൽഗഹാൻരജിസ്റ്റർചെയ്ത 634/2020, 74/2008 നമ്പർആധാരങ്ങളിൽ 74/2008 നമ്പർആധാരംജലജ ഗോപന്റെ പേർക 30.06.2020 ൽ തീറാധാരമായി രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ നല്കിയിട്ടുള്ളതായിറിപ്പോർടടചെയ്തിട്ടുണ. 74 / 2008 നമ്പർആധാരംവായ്പഫയലിൽ ഉൾപ്പെടുത്തിയിട്ടുണടഎങ്കിലുംഗഹാൻരജിസ്റ്റർചെയ്തിട്ടില്ലഎന്നുംആയതുസംബന്ധിച ബാങ ഭരണസമിതി യാതതൊരു അന്വേഷണവും നടത്തിയിട്ടില്ല എന്നും റിപ്പോർട ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ. കൂടാതെ ടിവായ്പകളിൽ 5881848 രൂപകുടിശികഉള്ളപ്പോൾ 120 മാസ കാലാവധികകവായ്പപുതുക്കിനൽകിയതായുംബാങ്കിന്റെപ്രവർത്തനപരിധിക്കുപുറത്തുഎ . ക്ലാസ്അംഗത്വംനൽകുന്നതായുംറിപ്പോർടടചെയ്തിട്ടുണ മേൽനടപടികളിൽബാങ ഭരണസമിതിയുടെ ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നുള്ളഅതിഗുരുതരമായവീഴ്ച്ചയുണ്ടായതായിപരാമർശം (1) പ്രകാരംവടക്കൻപറവൂർഅസിസ്റ്റനറരജിസ്ട്രാർറിപ്പോർടടചെയ്തിട്ടുണ. പരാമർശം (1) പ്രകാരമുള്ളറിപ്പോർട്ടുകളുംഅനുബന്ധങ്ങളുംപരിശ ോധിച്ചതിൽ നിന്നും വായ്പയുടെ ഈട് വസ്തുവിൽ നിലവും ഉൾപ്പെട്ടിട്ടുള്ളതായും, ശരിയായ മൂല്യനിർണ്ണയം നടത്താതേയും വാല്യുവേഷൻ എടുക്കാതേയും വായ്പ നൽകിയതിൽ ഭരണസമിതിയുടെ ഭാഗത്തു നിന മനപൂർവ് ം അതിഗുരുതരവുമായ വീഴ്ച . വന്നിട്ടുള്ളതായും നിയമപരമായിഒരുസർവ്വെനമ്പരിലുള്ളവസ്തുവിൽക കോടിക്കണക്കിനു രൂപവായ്പഅനുവദിക് വഴിബാങ്കിന്റെസാമ്പത്തികഭദ്രതക്കുതന്നെതകർച്ച ഉണ്ടാകുമെന്നുംഅതുവഴിഅംഗങ്ങളുടെ വിശ്വാസ്യതക കോട്ടംഉണ്ടാകുമെന്നുംഎനിക . ഉത്തമബബോദധംവന്നിരിക്കുന്നു സഹകരണ നിയമം, ചട്ടം എന്നിവയ്ക്കു വിധേയമായി പ്രവർത്തിക്കേണ്ട ഭരണസമിതി സ്വജനപക്ഷപാതപരമായി പ്രവർത്തിക്കുന്നുണ എങ്കിൽ ആയതു തടയേ ണ്ടതുംഅതുവഴിഅംഗങ്ങളുടെ വിശ്വാസ്യതകാത്തുസൂക്ഷിക്കേണ്ടത്നിയമവശാൽ അനിവാര്യമാണ്എനനകാണുന്നതിനാൽബാങ്കിന്റെ 01.01.2020 മുതൽഉത്തരവ് തീയതിവരെയുള്ള മുഴുവൻ വായ്പ വിതരണവുംബാങ്കിന്റെ നിലവിലെ സാമ്പത്തിക , ഘടനയും സാമ്പത്തികഭദ്രതയുംബാങ്കിന്റെപ്രവർത്തനംസംബന്ധിച്ചുംവിശദമായ അന്വേഷണംനടത്തേണ്ടത്അത്യന്താപേക്ഷിതമാണ്എനനഎനികകഉത്തമബബോധ്യം വന്നതിന്റെഅടിസ്ഥാനത്തിൽതാഴെ പറയുംപ്രകാരംഉത്തരവാകുന്നു .” A reading of the extracted portion of Ext.P1 order would indicate beyond doubt that it is not a case where the Joint Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 18 :- Registrar has acted mechanically on the reports filed by the Unit Inspector, but it is a case where on an active and independent application of mind on the reports and the various documents appended to the reports, the Joint Registrar has found that it is expedient in the interests of the Society to order an inquiry under Section 65(1) and accordingly issued the order impugned in the writ petition. This is the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well. We are, therefore, of the view that the order impugned in the writ petition is in conformity with the requirements under Section 65(1) of the Act. 11. That apart, as noted, in terms of the impugned order, the Joint Registrar has ordered an inquiry into the loan transactions of the Society commencing from 01.01.2020 and the financial structure and stability of the Society. Of course, if any major defect in the constitution, working or financial condition of the society is found in the inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Act, the Joint Registrar is empowered even to initiate steps for superseding the managing committee under Section 32 of the Act. But, in the event of such actions, society and the persons concerned will certainly be heard and the Writ Appeal No.232 of 2022 -: 19 :- irregularities, if any, in the report of inquiry under Section 65(1) could certainly be pointed out at that stage and there is, therefore, no reason at all for the society to be aggrieved by an order directing an inquiry under Section 65(1). 12. In paragraphs 11 to 13 of the writ petition, it was averred by the appellant that exercise of the power under Section 65(1) in the State is always selective, having regard to the political affiliation of the managing committee, and the power is invoked only with a view to find grounds for superseding the management of societies which do not owe allegiance to the political parties in power in the State. The averments in the said paragraphs are irrelevant in the context of this case, for it is found that Ext.P1 order of the Joint Registrar directing an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Act is in conformity with the statutory requirement. In the facts and circumstances, the writ appeal is without merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** **Sd/C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.** ds 16.02.2022