JUDGMENT : 1. All these writ petitions have been filed by the Presidents of various District Co-operative Banks in Kerala. In all these cases, Ext.P1 is under challenge. The writ petitions raised common question of law and hence, are heard and being disposed of together. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions contend that they are Presidents of the Board of Directors of their respective District Co-operative Banks. These Banks are Central Societies registered and functioning in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity, “the Act”). The Committees and Board of Directors have been engaged in a democratic manner and are functioning within the frame work of the Act, contend the petitioners. While so, the respondent issued Ext.P1 orders, whereby teams of Inspectors have been constituted for the purpose of making inquiry into the complaints received in respect of the functioning of the Banks. It is the case of the petitioners that Ext.P1 has been issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the so-called investigating team are drawn up from invisible source which itself vitiates the proceedings. Further more, the officers who are in constant interaction with the Banks in respect of the day-to-day functioning of the Banks, have been assigned the duty of inspection which is improper. 3. According to the petitioners, inquiry or inspection contemplated under Section 65 or 66 of the Act have to be within the procedural requirements prescribed for such inquiry and inspection. The procedural requirements have not been followed while issuing Ext.P1. The petitioners fear that the inspection as ordered is nothing but a prelude in initiating action under Section 32 of the Act. Reports will be obtained on dotted lines, contend the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, seek to quash Ext.P1 in the respective writ petitions and seek to declare that the inspection ordered as per Ext.P1 is in violation of the requirements of law. 4. A statement has been filed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the respondent, in W.P.(C) No.36025/2016. Advocate K.S.Mohamad Hashim, Special Government Pleader (Co-op) stated that the statement filed by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.36025/2016 can be adopted as the defence of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in respect of the other writ petitions also. 5. 4. A statement has been filed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the respondent, in W.P.(C) No.36025/2016. Advocate K.S.Mohamad Hashim, Special Government Pleader (Co-op) stated that the statement filed by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.36025/2016 can be adopted as the defence of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in respect of the other writ petitions also. 5. The statement of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies says that by virtue of Section 74C of the Act, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is empowered to conduct inspection into the affairs of the District Co-operative Banks every year. This power of the Registrar is in addition to the inquiry or inspection as provided in Sections 65 and 66 of the Act. It is not only in respect of any single District Co-operative Bank that the inspection has been ordered by the respondent. Wherever serious complaints have been made against the functioning of the Director Board of the District Co-operative Banks, such inspection has been ordered. The impugned orders have specified the name of the officers, who have been empowered to conduct inspection under Section 74C. The petitioners have not raised any substantial ground to unsettle the inspection ordered. It has been further stated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies that Ext.P1 is not an order under Section 66 as alleged by the writ petitioners. The writ petitions are, therefore, not to be entertained, states the respondent. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Advocate K.S.Mohamad Hashim, Special Government Pleader (Co-op). Advocate George Poonthottam, Advocate B.S.Swathi Kumar and Advocate M.Sasindran, who are appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions, contended that as a statutory functionary under the Act, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies can perform his functions and discharge his duties only as provided in the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The officers, who have been assigned to make inspections under Ext.P1 orders are officers, who are exercising supervisory powers over the Banks on a regular basis. They are officers, who are obliged under law to report to the Registrar after performing their statutory duties regarding any unauthorised action on the part of the Director Board. Therefore, the rationale for appointing those officials is not only questionable but is with ulterior motive, contends Advocate George Poonthottam. Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules provides the manner in which an inquiry or inspection is to be conducted. Therefore, the rationale for appointing those officials is not only questionable but is with ulterior motive, contends Advocate George Poonthottam. Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules provides the manner in which an inquiry or inspection is to be conducted. According to Advocate George Poonthottam, a prima facie satisfaction on the complaints received is a pre-requisite on the part of the Registrar, before invoking any action under Rule 66. Such prima facie satisfaction is absent in the present proceedings. Further more, law mandates that notice has to be served on the affected parties before ordering an inspection. Such requirement cannot be varied or diluted by the Registrar. Ext.P1 proceedings are, therefore, illegal and improper, contends the counsel for the petitioner. 7. Advocate B.S.Swathi Kumar appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36281/2016 would contend that all the District Co-operative Banks are licensed Banks under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and are functioning like a scheduled bank. The Banks have considerable autonomy in their functioning. However, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, by his impugned action, ignored the autonomy of the Banks and Ext.P1 can be treated only as an attempt on the part of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to bring the entire control of the Banks to the political party in power, by ordering inspection without legal justification and ignoring the requirements of law. Advocate B.S.Swathi Kumar further contended that the petitioners have served with Ext.P1 only when the officers came for inspection. The communication was not served on the petitioners in the manner as provided under law. The learned counsel asserted that the present action of the Registrar is motivated by political consideration of the party in power and is a gross misuse of the statutory power conferred on the Registrar, for collateral purposes. 8. Advocate M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.36469/2016 argued that Ext.P1 is nothing but a first step for initiating an action against the petitioners under Section 32 of the Act, on the basis of certain pre-planned report which will be obtained on dotted lines. The Registrar/ Joint Registrar is trying to take over the control of the District Co-operative Banks using their subordinate officers in order to satisfy the political party in power. The inspection now ordered has no legal justification whatsoever and the order has been made ignoring the requirements of law. The Registrar/ Joint Registrar is trying to take over the control of the District Co-operative Banks using their subordinate officers in order to satisfy the political party in power. The inspection now ordered has no legal justification whatsoever and the order has been made ignoring the requirements of law. Ext.P1 order is, therefore, liable to be set aside, contends Advocate M.Sasindran. 9. The counsel for the petitioners have a common case that subjective satisfaction of the Registry is not disclosed in Ext.P1 notice. Similarly, an order authorising inquiry under Section 65 or inspection under Section 66 shall invariably contain a decision as regards cause of inquiry or inspection, in view of Rule 66(1)(i)(d) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules. Similarly, the order should also mention the period of inquiry. The said requirement is also absent in Ext.P1. Further more, such inquiry ordered shall be completed within the stipulated time, which has not been done, contend the petitioners. The inspection now ordered can be treated only as one falling under Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, as the order in no way states that it is an inspection ordered by the Registrar invoking the power under Section 74C of the Act. 10. To the contrary, the learned Special Government Pleader (Co-op) defends the action of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and contends that the inspection ordered by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is one invoking his powers under Section 74C of the Act. The mentioning of Rule 66 in the order does not indicate that the inspection is ordered under Section 66 or Rule 66. The impugned order, which is issued invoking the powers under Section 74C, only provides that powers under Rule 66 of the Act can be exercised while conducting inspection. It does not mean that the inspection is ordered under Rule 66. 11. The learned Government Pleader asserted that pursuant to the impugned orders in all these cases, inspections have already been completed within the stipulated time and reports have been submitted to the Registrar also. On the basis of the reports so received, the respondent can, based on the findings in the report, either close the proceedings or proceed further under Section 32 or Section 68 of the Act. The Registrar can also invoke Rule 44 of the Act, if found necessary. On the basis of the reports so received, the respondent can, based on the findings in the report, either close the proceedings or proceed further under Section 32 or Section 68 of the Act. The Registrar can also invoke Rule 44 of the Act, if found necessary. The respondent has not proceeded further on the basis of the inspection reports, in deference to the interim orders passed in the above writ petitions. The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, permitting the respondent to proceed in accordance with law, argues the Special Government Pleader (Co-op). 12. I have considered the pleadings in the matter and the arguments raised by the counsel appearing on either side. The prime contention taken by the petitioners is that the action of the respondent in issuing Ext.P1 proceedings does not satisfy the requirements contained in Rule 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) in the matter of conduct of inquiry and inspection. Rule 66 of the Rules provides that an order authorising Inquiry under Section 65 or Inspection under Section 66 shall contain certain mandatory requirements as provided in Rule 66(1)(i) of the Rules and also should satisfy the provisions contained in sub-Rules (2) to (7) of the Rule. In this context, it is necessary to ascertain whether Ext.P1 has been issued under Sections 65 or 66 of the Act or under Section 74C of the Act, as asserted by the respondent. Ext.P1 orders an Inspection in the matter of certain subjects as narrated in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 does not specifically state whether the same has been issued under the powers of inspection contained in Section 66 of the Act or Section 74C of the Act. 13. The scope of conducting an inspection under Section 66 of the Act on the one hand and Section 74C on the other hand, has to be noted in the present context. As per Section 66, it is the duty of the Registrar to supervise or cause to be supervised the working of every society as frequently as he may consider it necessary. The supervision under Section 66(1) includes an inspection of the books of the society. As per Section 66, it is the duty of the Registrar to supervise or cause to be supervised the working of every society as frequently as he may consider it necessary. The supervision under Section 66(1) includes an inspection of the books of the society. Section 74C states that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 66, the Registrar shall inspect or cause to inspect the “affairs” of all apex, federal and central societies every year and the power of inspecting officers shall be as specified under sub-Section (4) of Section 66. Section 66 contemplates frequent inspection of books of accounts of any society by the Registrar. Section 74C, however, stands on a different footing and has a broader context of inspection, in as much as under Section 74C, the Registrar can make/order an inspection into “affairs” of all apex, federal and central societies every year. It is the specific stand of the respondent that inspection ordered under Ext.P1 is one ordered invoking the powers conferred under Section 74C of the Act. Section 74C can be invoked only in respect of the inspection into the affairs of any apex, federal and central societies. All the petitioners in these writ petitions are central societies. In the absence of reference to any Section of the Act in the impugned proceedings, there is no reason to disbelieve the respondent that the inspection ordered as per Ext.P1 is one under Section 74C. 14. The argument of the petitioners is that before ordering an inspection under the Act, the Registrar shall have a prima facie satisfaction on the necessity of making a statutory inspection. True, before ordering a statutory inspection, the authority who makes the order should prima facie be convinced of the necessity to order the inspection. However, it is to be noted that such inspections are ordered when there are doubts or allegations of illegality/irregularity in the conduct of the affairs of the society. If the information based on which such inspection is ordered, received by the Registrar, discloses prima facie allegations/doubts in the manner of conduct of the affairs of the society, the Registrar can order inspection. Inspection being the first stage of any inquiry under the provisions of the Act, such decision to order inspection need not be based on material evidence collected implicating the Director Board members of the society. Evidence is a matter to be collected during and after the inspection. Inspection being the first stage of any inquiry under the provisions of the Act, such decision to order inspection need not be based on material evidence collected implicating the Director Board members of the society. Evidence is a matter to be collected during and after the inspection. Therefore, if there is prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Registrar on the complaints received by him/ the allegations raised before him, the Registrar can order an inspection under Section 74C. Reasons for such satisfaction need not be reflected in order of inspection. Therefore, Ext.P1 cannot be found fault with on that ground. 15. Another contention of the petitioners is that notice shall be issued to the petitioners before ordering an inspection. Neither Section 74C nor Section 66 mandates that a notice shall be given to the society before ordering an inspection. Section 66 contemplates frequent inspection by the Registrar or by persons authorised by him. Issuance of notice before ordering inspection is not contemplated under Section 66 or Section 74C. At times, such notice, if issued, may defeat the every purpose of the inspection also. This Court had occasion to consider this issue. In the judgment in State of Kerala v. Aravindakshan Nair [ 2010 (3) KLT 11 ], a Division Bench of this Court held that Rule 66 does not contemplate any opportunity to be given to any society, except with regard to cost of inspection. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that a notice and an opportunity to show-cause against the inspection vitiates Ext.P1 proceedings, is unsustainable and is only to be rejected. 16. The further contention of the petitioners is that Ext.P1 proceedings is intended to undermine the autonomy of the District Co-operative Banks. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Co-operative Banks enjoy the same amount of autonomy as is available to public sector Banks. By the very nature of banking business, the banking institutions definitely enjoy an amount of autonomy. But, the petitioner-Banks being established under the Act, are bound by the provisions therein, Rules made thereunder and also the orders issued by the State invoking the powers under the Act. Therefore, though the District Co-operative Banks have autonomy, such autonomy will be subservient to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. But, the petitioner-Banks being established under the Act, are bound by the provisions therein, Rules made thereunder and also the orders issued by the State invoking the powers under the Act. Therefore, though the District Co-operative Banks have autonomy, such autonomy will be subservient to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 being issued invoking statutory power and duty of the Registrar under the Act, the contention of the petitioners that Ext.P1 proceedings are intended to undermine the autonomy of the Banks, cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 17. Further contention of the petitioners is that in view of Rule 66(1)(i)(d), Ext.P1 order shall contain certain particulars, one of them being costs of inquiry or inspection. The provisions in Rule 66(1)(i) are intended to give clarity to the manning and nature of inspection. Ext.P1 sufficiently discloses the names of the Societies, whose affairs are to be inquired. It also gives names of the persons authorised to conduct inspection. The points on which Inspection is to be made, are also described with clarity. The costs of Inspection is not specified, as provided in Rule 66 of the Rules. Reading Rule 66(1)(i) in its entirety, omission to disclose Inspection costs as provided in sub-Clause (d) cannot be taken as an omission vitiating Ext.P1 proceedings. The arguments of the petitioners in that regard is, therefore, only to be repelled. 18. The counsel for the petitioners have yet another contention that Ext.P1 ordering inspection should have given the period for which the inspection is to be done. Rule 66(1)(i) (c) provides that the order should contain the period within which the inquiry or inspection is to be completed and report submitted to the Registrar. The argument is that it is not sufficient for the respondent to provide for the period within which the inquiry/inspection is to be completed but should make it clear as to the actions/omissions of the managing committee relating to which period, the inspection is to be made. I am afraid neither Section 65 and Section 74C nor Rule 66 requires that such period is to be disclosed. The argument in this regard also, therefore, cannot be accepted. 19. The learned Special Government Pleader has stated during the arguments that the inquiry ordered as per Ext.P1 has been completed within the stipulated time and the inspection reports are before the respondent to act upon. The argument in this regard also, therefore, cannot be accepted. 19. The learned Special Government Pleader has stated during the arguments that the inquiry ordered as per Ext.P1 has been completed within the stipulated time and the inspection reports are before the respondent to act upon. The learned Government Pleader submits that based on the inspection reports, the Registrar will be taking appropriate steps including dropping of the proceedings, supersession under Section 32, surcharge proceeding under Section 68 or discharge proceeding under Rule 44 as may be found required. The respondent has not acted upon the reports due to the interim orders of the Court. In the circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the grounds urged by the petitioners in the writ petitions and the petitioners have not suffered any legal injury by the issuance of Ext.P1 order. Therefore, all these writ petitions are dismissed, permitting the respondent to proceed with the inspection ordered as per Ext.P1, in accordance with law.