ORDER This writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the second respondent as per Annexures-E and F, dated 23-1-2006, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking for engaging the service of the legal practitioner under Rule 55 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’), since the Inquiry Officer can record the statement of any person while inspecting the accounts and hold enquiry, the application seeking for engaging the service of legal practitioner ought to have been allowed. Learned Counsel further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to substantiate the contention and the 2nd respondent has rejected the said application by making an endorsement on the copy of the application to the effect that permission to engage the service of legal practitioner cannot be granted as it is only a fact finding inquiry. 4. It is clear from the provisions of Section 64 of the Act that the Registrar is empowered to hold inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a Co-operative Society and Section 64(4) of the Act requires that after the enquiry is held, the inquiry report shall be communicated to the Society and thereafter, if the Society feels that there is any misappropriation, the necessary proceedings can be initiated including the surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Act and it is only when the proceedings are initiated for taking action on the basis of the report under Section 64 of the Act, the question of giving an opportunity to the petitioners by framing charges and holding inquiry as required, would arise. It is clear from the provisions of Section 69 of the Act that before imposing surcharge and recovery of the amount, charge has to be framed and opportunity has to be given to the concerned to substantiate his contention and inquiry will be held. It is clear from the provisions of Section 69 of the Act that before imposing surcharge and recovery of the amount, charge has to be framed and opportunity has to be given to the concerned to substantiate his contention and inquiry will be held. So far as the inquiry by the Registrar held under Section 64 of the Act is concerned, it is only a fact finding inquiry and the question of the petitioners being assisted by the legal practitioner would not arise at all and the impugned order passed by the second respondent as per Annexures-E and F, cannot be said to be suffering from any error apparent on the face of the order and does not call for interference in this writ petition in exercise of the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed.