JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner society seeking to quash Ext.P3 audit certificate issued by the 2nd respondent and Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 20.04.2017 in accordance with the direction issued by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4830 of 2017, dated 14.02.2017. Shorn off unnecessary details, material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is a Class-I (Special Grade) Service Cooperative Society established in the year 1995. For the last several years, the society is running on profit. In all audit reports up to 2015-16, the auditors approved the functioning of the society, however, the audit for the year 2015-16 was conducted by the 3rd respondent without verifying the relevant documents in an arbitrary manner, violating the mandatory procedures stipulated in Sec.64 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, [for short, 'the Act, 1969'], which, according to the petitioner, was done with a view to somehow or other find fault with the functioning of the society, totally ignoring the written explanation submitted by the petitioner with documentary evidence to establish the hollowness of the defect pointed out by the 3rd respondent, Ext.P3 audit certificate, and memorandum prepared by the 3rd respondent. 3. It is further submitted that, since Ext.P3 audit certificate was prepared by the 3rd respondent with a malicious motive to somehow or other tarnish the well established reputation of the society, invoking the power under Sec.64(12) (a) of the Co-operative Societies Act, the managing committee requested the 2nd respondent to get its account audited by another officer, so as to rectify the defect in Ext.P3 audit memorandum. Since no decision was taken by the 2nd respondent, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4830 of 2016, and this Court as per judgment dated 14.02.2017, directed the 2nd respondent to take a decision in that application within one month. The review petition filed by the 3rd respondent against the judgment was disposed of by this Court, by directing the 2nd respondent to provide an opportunity of hearing to the 3rd respondent also. In compliance with the said direction, 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P5 order dated 20.04.2017, affirming the audit report submitted by the 3rd respondent. It is thus seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P5, this writ petition is filed. 4. In compliance with the said direction, 2nd respondent has passed Ext.P5 order dated 20.04.2017, affirming the audit report submitted by the 3rd respondent. It is thus seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P5, this writ petition is filed. 4. Second respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the allegations and contentions raised in the writ petition. Among other contentions, it is stated that, as per Sec.63(4) of Act, 1969, it is the duty of the managing committee to get its accounts audited at least once in every year, and the accounts of every society shall be audited within six months of the close of the financial year to which such accounts relate. The petitioner's Bank accounts for the year 2015-16 is audited by the 3rd respondent. While conducting the audit, the auditor has found some grave irregularities and misappropriations in the functioning of the bank, committed by the managing committee. Irregularities are the gold loan ornament auction, causing loss to the bank, non-payment of VAT to Government, conducting Chitty transaction without the sanction of the department, non-payment of GDCS fees to Government, irregularities in appointment of Peons, excess payment of deposit interest etc. etc. 5. As a part of the statutory audit, the auditor has issued Ext.P1 notice to the members of the managing committee and sought to rectify the above defects. However, without rectifying the defects, petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation to the auditor. Since the defects were not rectified by the bank, the auditor was constrained to include those defects in Ext.P3 audit certificate as per the norms of the statutory audit. In fact, the auditor has audited the accounts of the bank as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, audit manual and various directions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time. 6. It is further submitted that, in the gold loan auction, the bank has suffered loss of an amount of Rs.33 lakhs, apart from other major defects, leading to various financial losses to the bank. As provided in Sec.64(10) of Act, 1969, if the result of audit held under Sec.63 discloses any serious defects in the working of the society,the Director of Co-operative Audit or the person authorized by him shall communicate the same forthwith to the Registrar for immediate further action. As provided in Sec.64(10) of Act, 1969, if the result of audit held under Sec.63 discloses any serious defects in the working of the society,the Director of Co-operative Audit or the person authorized by him shall communicate the same forthwith to the Registrar for immediate further action. Thus, those irregularities found during the audit has been reported by the auditor, besides the regular audit report for the year 2016-17 submitted before the authority for further action including report to the Police Authorities, as prescribed in the circular of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, evident from Ext.R2(a). 7. It is also submitted that the petitioner bank has filed 7 other writ petitions in the year 2017 itself against the department by using the money deposited by the public. The claim of the bank that by invoking the powers under Sec.64 (12)(a) of Act, 1969, the bank had requested to cancel the audit defects and order re-audit of accounts is totally against the provisions of the Act. The bank has no statutory right to place a request to order re-audit or cancel the defects in the audit certificate. It is also submitted that the Bank, with deposit over Rs.42 crores, is functioning without a paid Secretary. The topmost three supervisory posts in the bank viz., Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Internal Auditor are kept vacant even now, and the same is a well-calculated move of the managing committee to make opportunity for committing corruption and misappropriation. Other circumstances are pointed out to state that the bank has made appointments against the staff pattern provided under Rule 188 of Rules, 1969. It is also submitted that there is no political motive in order to non-seat the managing committee, and the allegations contrary to the same cannot be sustained under law. 8. That apart, it is submitted that, against Ext.P9 enquiry report, bank has filed W.P.(C) No.10428 of 2017 and by virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, the statutory enquiry is permitted to be completed. It is also contended that, Ext.P5 is a speaking order, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition. 9. It is also contended that, Ext.P5 is a speaking order, and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ petition. 9. Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that, on the basis of the instructions given to the 3rd respondent, she conducted audit of the account of the petitioner society for the period 2015-16, on the basis of the documents and materials produced before her by the society and submitted a report before the Assistant Director of Cooperative Audit, Kollam Taluk. It is submitted that, as per 2015-16 audit certificate of the petitioner, deposit balance as on 31.03.2016 was about Rs.42 crores and loan outstanding was about Rs.28 crores. The bank was running on profit during the year 2015-16, and net profit was Rs.2,16,868.05/-. Other contentions are also raised in tune with the contentions raised by the 2nd respondent in its counter affidavit. 10. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition and also producing additional documents along with the same. 11. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 12. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P3 audit certificate, and Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent, refusing to interfere with the audit report submitted by the 3rd respondent. Before considering the factual circumstances involved in this case, it is only appropriate that the power conferred on the auditor is appreciated. 13. As per Sec.63 (1) of Act, 1969, Government appoints an Audit Director. Sub-section (6) of Sec.63 stipulates that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Audit certificate issued by the Director of Co-operative Audit, or by any officer authorized by him shall be valid for all purposes required to be filed before the State Government and non-Governmental authorities. As per sub-section (7), the Director of Cooperative Audit shall be under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. As per sub-section (7), the Director of Cooperative Audit shall be under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Sub-section (9) imposes a duty on every Co-operative Society to cause audit by an Auditor or Auditors or team of Auditors referred to in sub-sec.(8) appointed by the general body or special general body from among the panel of Auditors approved by the Director of Cooperative Audit. Proviso thereto enables the general body of a society to appoint auditing firms from among a panel approved by the Director of Co-operative Audit, if there are no auditors available from the panel prescribed under sub-sec.(9). Subsection (12) casts responsibility on the managing committee to convene general body meeting or special general body meeting in order to appoint auditors etc. etc. 14. Section 64 of the Act deals with scope of audit, powers of the Director of Co-operative Audit and procedure for audit. Sub-section (2) deals with the power of the Director of Co-operative Audit or the person authorized by him under Sec.63. The rest of the provisions of Sec.64 show that the auditor appointed is vested with powers to summon any person in possession or responsible for the custody of any such books of accounts, documents etc. etc. 15. A duty is cast upon, under the provisions of Sec.64 to the person in possession of documents of the society to produce the same before the auditor so appointed. Subsection (4B) of Sec.64 stipulates that, within three months from the date of receipt of the audit report, the Director of Cooperative Audit shall issue an audit certificate to the concerned society with a copy of audit memorandum as may be prescribed. Sub-section (10) of Sec.64 states that, if the result of the audit held under Sec.63 discloses any defects in the working of a society, the Director of Co-operative Audit may direct such defects to the notice of the society, and if the society is affiliated to another society also to the notice of that other society. Sub-section (11) of Sec.64 stipulates that the Director of Co-operative Audit may, by order in writing, direct the society or its officers to take such action, as may be specified in the order, within the time mentioned therein to rectify the defects disclosed in the audit, under intimation to the Registrar. 16. Sub-section (11) of Sec.64 stipulates that the Director of Co-operative Audit may, by order in writing, direct the society or its officers to take such action, as may be specified in the order, within the time mentioned therein to rectify the defects disclosed in the audit, under intimation to the Registrar. 16. Sub-section (12) of Sec.64 starts with a non-obstante clause and stipulates that, it shall be duty of the committee of a society to request the Director of Co-operative Audit to get its accounts audited every year. Clause (b) of sub-section (12) encompasses a duty to place the audit certificate in full before the General Body or the representative General Body and read over to the General Body or representative General Body of the defects mentioned in it, and also to place the rectification reports of each defects mentioned in the audit certificate to the Director of Cooperative Audit and to the Registrar within two months of the receipt of the audit certificate. These are the basic provisions with respect to the conduct of the audit. 17. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that, to Ext.P1 audit report, petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 objection, which was not considered by the 3rd respondent. On a reading of Ext.P1, it is evident that various defects were pointed out by the 3rd respondent auditor and on the basis of the report, it was intimated to the society why action shall not be taken to recover the loss sustained by the bank from the members of the managing committee, and if no reply is submitted within five days, it will be deemed that there are no reasons to be submitted. It is further stated therein that the audit report is placed for taking appropriate action. 18. It is to Ext.P1 report, Ext.P2 objection is submitted by the members of the managing committee, which is dated 22.08.2016. It is further stated therein that the audit report is placed for taking appropriate action. 18. It is to Ext.P1 report, Ext.P2 objection is submitted by the members of the managing committee, which is dated 22.08.2016. In my considered opinion, as discussed above, as per sub-section (9) of Sec.64, if the result of the audit held under Sec.63 discloses any defects in the working of a society, the Director of Co-operative Audit may bring such defects to the notice of the society, and as per sub-section (11), the Director of Co-operative Audit is vested with powers to direct the society or its officers to take such action as may be specified in the order, within the time mentioned therein to rectify the defects disclosed in the audit, under intimation to the Registrar. Therefore, it is evident from such mandatory provisions, when an auditor submits a report, there is no scope for any submission of objection before the very same auditor. But, when the auditor submits a report to the Director and the Director issues an audit certificate, which is evident from Ext.P3 dated 05.10.2016 along with Ext.P3, copies of audit memorandum is also provided to the petitioner society. 19. The recitals contained in Ext.P3 makes it abundantly clear that the same is the certificate contemplated under subsection (4B) of Sec.64. Therefore, on receipt of Ext.P3, a duty is cast upon the managing committee of the society to place the audit certificate in full before the general body or the representative general body and to read over to the general body or representative general body of the defects mentioned in it, and also to place rectification reports on each defects before the general body or the representative general body, as is contemplated under clause (b) of sub-section (12) of Sec.64. The procedure contemplated thereafter is stated in clause (c) of sub-section (12) of Sec.64, which encompasses a duty on the society to rectify all the defects mentioned in the audit certificate and to submit the rectification report on the defects mentioned in the audit certificate to the Director of Cooperative Audit and to the Registrar within two months of receipt of the audit certificate. 20. 20. However, without complying with the said mandatory requirements under law, petitioner society preferred Ext.P4 before the Director of Co-operative Audit, requesting to interfere with the audit report submitted by the 3rd respondent, which was declined as per Ext.P5 order, stating that the audit report made by the 3rd respondent is in accordance with law. In my considered opinion, on a conspectus of the provisions of Sections 63 and 64 of Act, 1969, there is no power vested with the Director to entertain any application on the basis of the audit report submitted by the auditor. The remedy available to the society is to place the audit certificate i.e. Ext.P3 before the general body and act in accordance with the provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (12) of Sec.64. Petitioner has no case that such a course of action is adopted by the society against Ext.P3 audit certificate. It is true, petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 before the Director of Co-operative Audit and has secured an order from this court in W.P.(C) No.4830 of 2017 dated 14.02.2017 to dispose of the application submitted before the Director of Co-operative Audit. It was on the basis of the said directives only, the Director has gone through the application submitted and declined interference to Ext.P1 audit report. 21. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and appreciating the law in that regard, I do not think that any interference is warranted to Exts.P3 audit certificate and Ext.P5 order passed by the Director of Audit. The paramount contention advanced by learned Senior Counsel during the course of arguments is that, in accordance with the pleadings made in the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the audit for the year 2015-16 was conducted by one Sheeba and only in the final stage of preparation of audit report, the 3rd respondent took charge as the auditor. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the said change is made without the approval of the managing committee, and therefore, the audit report submitted by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained under law. 22. First of all, no pleading is raised in the writ petition. Merely because a statement is made in the reply affidavit accordingly, can never be treated as a pleading in the writ petition. 22. First of all, no pleading is raised in the writ petition. Merely because a statement is made in the reply affidavit accordingly, can never be treated as a pleading in the writ petition. Secondly, Ext.P2 is the objection filed by the managing committee to Ext.P1 audit report, however, no such allegation is made in Ext.P2, which was submitted, admittedly, immediately after Ext.P1 report. This is exactly the contention advanced by learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Therefore, such a contention raised in the reply affidavit can only be treated as an after thought on the part of the petitioner, which has no binding force of law. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get any relief on the said ground also. A further contention is raised by the petitioner that, Exts.P1 to P3 are all issued on 05.10.2016. It is true, Ext.P1 is undated. But objection, Ext.P2, submitted by the petitioner is bearing date 22.08.2016 and Ext.P3 is dated 05.10.2016. Therefore, such a contention has no force of law. 23. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has raised a further contention that the 2nd respondent in accordance with the directions issued by this Court has heard the petitioner and the 3rd respondent separately on two different dates i.e., 05.04.2017 and 17.04.2017 respectively, and therefore, such a course of action adopted is absolutely in violation of the principles of natural justice. True, I find force in the said contention. But, I do not find any reason to set aside Ext.P5 and send the same back for re-hearing, since I have found that the statutory provision never recognizes the Director of Cooperative Audit as an appellate authority under law. There is no provision either under Sec.63 or under Sec.64 or any other provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or Rules, to make any appeal or revision to the Director of Co-operative Audit against his own audit certificate viz., Ext.P3, which if done amounts to review, without any statutory backing. Even though it is stated that the 3rd respondent acted with malafides, the nature of malafides is not at all explained in the writ petition. Therefore, there are no legal or factual circumstances established by the petitioner to interfere with the audit certificate and order issued by the 2nd respondent. 24. Even though it is stated that the 3rd respondent acted with malafides, the nature of malafides is not at all explained in the writ petition. Therefore, there are no legal or factual circumstances established by the petitioner to interfere with the audit certificate and order issued by the 2nd respondent. 24. Be that as it may, writ petitions are filed before this Court challenging the audit certificate contending that there is no specific provision either under the Act or Rules to challenge the audit certificate. But, in my considered opinion, as per sub-section (7) of Sec.63, the Director of Co-operative Audit is under the control of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. As per sub-section (10) of Sec.64, the Director of Co-operative Audit is to make necessary direction to the society under intimation to the Registrar. As per clause (c) of sub-section (12) of Sec.64, the society is to rectify the defects mentioned in the audit certificate and submit a rectification report to the Director of Co-operative Audit and to the Registrar within two months of receipt of the audit certificate. Furthermore, the Registrar is vested with powers under Sec.65 to conduct an enquiry on the basis of a report of the Director of Co-operative Audit appointed under Sec.63. 25. That apart, Sec.32 enables the Registrar to supersede the committee of a society on various grounds, including persistently making default, or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on the society by the provisions of the Act and Rules or bye-laws or does anything which is prejudicial to the interests of the society; or willfully disobeys or fails to comply with any lawful order or direction issued under the Act or Rules. 26. As I have pointed out earlier, sub-section (7) of Sec.63 makes it abundantly clear that the Director of Cooperative Audit is under the control of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and therefore, when an auditor issues an audit certificate, even though there is no definite provision to file an appeal to the Registrar, the Registrar is vested with powers by virtue of the provisions discussed above to entertain at least a revision against the audit certificate. I hold so, particularly for the reason that, if there is no way out for challenge of an audit certificate, writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the aggrieved. I hold so, particularly for the reason that, if there is no way out for challenge of an audit certificate, writ remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked by the aggrieved. But an audit report is drawn taking into account various facts, circumstances and documents produced by the society and therefore, the re-appreciation of facts by this Court in a writ petition is not a viable solution, and not expected to do so under law in order to substitute its own factual findings. Moreover, it is only appropriate that, yet another authority has a re-look to the subject issue. In that view of the matter, and as discussed above, if any person is aggrieved by any audit certificate, a remedy is left with him for filing a review before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner has any grievance against Ext.P3 audit report, petitioner is entitled to prefer any revision, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if legally entitled to do so otherwise. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.