Judgment : 1. The petitioner, President of the Mylachal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No: 683 has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings of the first respondent by which an enquiry under Section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the 'Act' for short has been ordered. According to the petitioner, one Vikraman Nair who is the third respondent in this writ petition was carrying on a campaign of submitting complaints against the society to the authorities. Such complaints had been got enquired into through the Assistant Registrars and were found to be without any substance as per Exts.P3 and P5 reports. Therefore, there is no necessity for ordering a further enquiry under Section 66 of the Act. It is contended that the present enquiry that has been ordered is motivated and is intended only to fish for evidence with the object of superseding the elected Managing Committee that is in power. It is contended that the provisions of law should not be used for such oblique purposes and therefore the order Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside. 2. According to Adv. P.C. Sasidharan who appears for the petitioner, Section 66 contemplates the ordering of an enquiry in a situation where a creditor of a society wants such an enquiry to be conducted. The supervisory power of the Registrar under Section 66 does not extend to ordering of an enquiry on the basis of a complaint filed by the third respondent as in the present case. The order Ext.P1 itself shows that the enquiry has been directed to be conducted into the complaints made by the third respondent. Since the complaints have already been found to be without any substance by the earlier enquiries conducted it is contended that the present enquiry that has been ordered, is highly improper and an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner therefore seeks the intervention of this Court to set aside Ext.P1. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader on the other hand points out that Ext.P1 order has been issued not merely for the purpose of enquiring into the complaints made by the third respondent. The scope of the enquiry ordered under Section 66 is wider since it encompasses an enquiry into the general working of the society also. 3. The learned Govt. Pleader on the other hand points out that Ext.P1 order has been issued not merely for the purpose of enquiring into the complaints made by the third respondent. The scope of the enquiry ordered under Section 66 is wider since it encompasses an enquiry into the general working of the society also. It is true that such an enquiry has been ordered after considering the complaint of the third respondent as well as the earlier reports submitted in the matter. That does not in any way limit the jurisdiction of the first respondent in exercising the power under Section 66 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in K.G.Sadasivan v. Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies and others {2008(1)KHC 556} to point out that the first respondent is at liberty to collect the information required for ordering an enquiry under Section 66 from any source, including a complaint made by another person. For the above reasons, the learned Govt. Pleader seeks dismissal of this writ petition. 4. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Govt. Pleader at length. I have also considered the rival contentions advanced before me anxiously. 5. It is true that the third respondent appears to have been making complaints about the working of the bank. It is also true that as per Exts.P3 and P5 reports, the Assistant Registrar has found that the complaints of the third respondent were without substance. However, a perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the first respondent has considered the said reports as well as the complaint of the third respondent and has entered a finding that the reports already submitted are not sufficient to disclose the veracity of the allegations made by the third respondent. For the above reason, the first respondent has found that an enquiry specifically into the complaints raised by the third respondent and generally into the working of the Co--operative bank was necessary to be conducted. It is on the basis of such a finding that an enquiry under Section 66 of the Act has been ordered. I do not find any infirmity in the said reasoning of the first respondent. I am also not satisfied that any interference with the conduct of an enquiry under Section 66 into the affairs of the bank in question is called for. I do not find any infirmity in the said reasoning of the first respondent. I am also not satisfied that any interference with the conduct of an enquiry under Section 66 into the affairs of the bank in question is called for. Apart from the above, it has to be borne in mind that the power under Section 66 of the Act is supervisory in nature and the provision makes it clear that the first respondent is at liberty to supervise or cause to be supervised by a person authorised by him by general or special order in writing in this behalf, the working of every society, as frequently as he may consider necessary. The supervision under this sub-section may include an inspection of the books of the society.' (emphasis supplied) Therefore, in the nature of the power conferred, it is within the realm of the authority of the first respondent to decide how frequently the inspection of accounts or supervision of the affairs of the society should be conducted. For the above reason it has to be held that the issue of Ext.P1 and ordering of the present enquiry is within the powers of the first respondent. 6. A similar contention as in the present case was considered by this Court in the decision reported in 2008(1) KHC 556 (supra). In the said case also the writ petition was filed by the President of a co-operative bank challenging a similar order directing an enquiry to be conducted under Section 66 of the Act, on the basis of a complaint made by another person to the Joint Registrar. It was argued in the said case also that the whole exercise was politically motivated. The contentions have been negatived by this Court in the following words in paragraph 6 of the judgment:- "On to the question of jurisdiction, when the Joint Registrar or Registrar of Co-operative Societies has the power to act on his own motion, i.e. suo motu, it is not within the province of 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 Co-operative Societies or the Joint Registrar, including from non-traceable sources. The plethora of instances which have been considered by this Court would show that material information may reach the Registrar of Co-operative 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 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 Section 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." In view of the above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P1. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.