KHAN, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT was the Chairman of Citizen Urban Co- operative bank Ltd. , Indore and member of the Board of Directors also. The Board was superseded by order dated 29. 4,92 passed by respondent No. 1 and the Bank was ordered to be winding-up and a Liquidator was appointed by order dated 23. 2. 93. It seems that some allegations of surcharge were made against some persons including the appellant and respondent No. 3 was appointed as enquiry Officer to ascertain whether any case of surcharge was made out against them. Respondent No. 3 issued three notices in exercise of powers under Section 63 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. to the appellant asking him to appear before him to face the inquiry, which was not. however, concluded. ( 2 ) MEANWHILE. M. P. Co-operative Societies Act was amended by amendment Act of 1994. which came into force on 8. 5. 94. deleting Section 63. Respondent No. 3. thereafter is said to have issued a circular No. 552. dated 27. 5. 94 requiring all concerned to return the pending inquiries to the concerning Co-operative Societies, for consideration in their General Meetings and for appropriate proceedings against the delinquent office bearers in Civil courts under Section 64. if so advised. Consequently, respondent No. 3 addressed a communication to respondent No. 2 stating that no enquiry could be continued in respect of surcharge, consequent upon relation of Section 63. It is submitted that files of inquiry against appellant were accordingly returned to respondent No. 2 for being forwarded to the concerned Co-operative Society, and investigation under Section 63 (1) was ended. ( 3 ) AT this stage, Board of Revenue appears to have rendered decision in appeal No. 145-1/92 on 13. 10. 94 filed by persons against whom surcharge proceedings stood concluded, holding that pending proceedings were not affected by the deletion of Section 63 and the Board was competent to hear the appeals. Taking clue from this, respondent No. 1 again issued a circular on 16. 1. 95 informing all concerned that pending proceedings for surcharge should be continued. In compliance, respondent No. 3 issued fresh notice to appellant on 3. 11. 95 under Section 63 (1) calling upon him to appear for facing the investigation on the same subject matter, He replied on 25. 11. 1. 95 informing all concerned that pending proceedings for surcharge should be continued. In compliance, respondent No. 3 issued fresh notice to appellant on 3. 11. 95 under Section 63 (1) calling upon him to appear for facing the investigation on the same subject matter, He replied on 25. 11. 95 contending that a closed investigation could not be reopened after deletion of section 63. and that the action of respondent No. 3 was without jurisdiction, his objection was overruled and he was directed to file reply to the notice. ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, appellant filed W. P. No. 231/96 assailing the fresh notice, dated 3. 11. 95 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and prayed for their quashment. Writ Court issued notice to respondents and also granted interim stay of proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS also filed reply taking the stand that the deletion of section 63. did not affect the pending inquiries and, therefore. the impugned notices were in order. ( 6 ) THE writ Court while considering the writ petition disposed it off by observing that respondent was free to reply to show cause notice which was to be considered by respondents on merits according to law. ( 7 ) APPELLANT has filed this appeal against the order impugned on the plea that writ Court had failed to decide whether the impugned notices suffered from lack of jurisdiction after the deletion of Section 63. It is also submitted that he had already replied to these notices and the question of any further reply did not arise. Therefore, writ Court ought to have considered the matter on merit and determine whether the notices could be issued in exercise of Section 63, after it was deleted and after investigation against him was closed, more so, when respondents have not denied the closure of such investigation. It appears that crucial jurisdictional plea had escaped the notice of the writ Court and it had proceeded on an assumption that the notices were required to be replied, over looking that appellant's challenge was addressed to the root of the matter. It would, therefore, be appropriate to set aside the impugned order with request to the writ Court to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders. ( 8 ) THIS appeal is disposed off accordingly. Order accordingly. .