JUDGMENT : It is relatively lesser known that under the precepts of section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS Act for short hereinafter), which begins with the heading “supervision and Inspection”, is also a provision which authorises the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to hold enquiry, with necessary records, on a petition received by him, as regards the affairs of a Co-operative Society. This power is invested in the Registrar through Section 66(11) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which was inserted into it only with effect from 28.04.2010. 2. This writ petition calls upon this Court to examine the nuances of this provision. 3. The Kizhathadiyoor Service Co-operative Bank, a Society registered under the provisions of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, (KCS Act for short) has approached this Court through this writ petition impugning Ext.P11 order issued by the 1st respondent Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as per which, directions purportedly under Section 66(2) has been issued by the said Authority. The specific contention of the petitioner-bank is that Ext.P11 order is incompetent since, it clearly has been issued on the basis of a complaint made by the 3rd respondent, who the Bank alleges, pointing out to Ext.P7, is a debtor, and therefore that, the Authority could not have issued any such order under Section 66(2). He, therefore, prays that this order be set aside and that all consequential action be interdicted. 4. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner-Bank commences his submissions referring specifically to Section 66(2) of the Act which reads as under: “66. Supervision and Inspection: (1) xxx xxx xxx. (2) The Registrar may, on his own motion, or on the application of a creditor of a society, inspect or direct any person authorised by him by order in writing in this behalf to inspect the books of the society: Provided that no such inspection shall be made on the application of a creditor unless the applicant- (a) satisfies the Registrar that the debt is a sum then due and that he has demanded payment thereof and has not received satisfaction within a reasonable time and (b) deposits with the Registrar, such a sum as security for the costs of the proposed inspection as the Registrar may require.” 5. He says that, as it is ineluctable from the said provision, an inspection of the books of the Society can be ordered by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies either on his own motion or only on the application of a creditor. He vehemently submits that the 3rd respondent herein is not a creditor, but is in fact, a debtor; certain amounts being due from him to the Bank; and that since Ext.P11 having not been issued by the Registrar on his own motion either, the said order must certainly be set aside. He adds that the Society is one of the best running Societies in the State and that the allegations made by the 3rd respondent are wild and reckless which should not have normally been countenanced by the statutory Authorities. 6. In answer to the afore submissions of Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, Sri. Gilbert George Korreya, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, submits that his client is a member of the society but denies that he is a debtor or that any amounts are due from him to the Society. He, then, submits that his client had filed a petition before the Registrar not under Section 66(2) of the KCS Act, but under Section 66(11), which reads as under: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2) above, the Registrar or his subordinate officers authorised by him under sub section (1) shall have power to hold an enquiry with necessary records of a society, on any petition received, and to inspect the affairs of a society periodically in such cases the inspecting officers shall have the same powers as specified in sub-section (4). 7. Sri. Gilbert George Korreya proceeds to submit that subsequent to the filing of his application, the Registrar obtained a preliminary report about the affairs of the Society, through the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which report has been referred to as item No.2 in Ext.P11, which clearly indicates that all is not well in the functioning of the Society. He, therefore, says that instead of harping upon technicalities, the Bank must answer the specific allegations made against them in the report of the Assistant Registrar and face the enquiry as has been ordered in Ext.P11. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. He, therefore, says that instead of harping upon technicalities, the Bank must answer the specific allegations made against them in the report of the Assistant Registrar and face the enquiry as has been ordered in Ext.P11. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Bimal K. Nath, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that the Registrar has issued Ext.P11 taking note of the complaint of the 3rd respondent as also adverting to the report of the Assistant Registrar, wherein very serious allegations have been made against said Society. He says that what is attempted through Ext.P11 is to have an over-view of the functioning of the Society, through a proper inspection and he says that this cannot be of any prejudice to even the Society and that he fails to understand why they are scared of facing the enquiry as has been ordered in Ext.P11. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed and Ext. P11 be left undisturbed. 9. I have assessed the submissions made on behalf of the parties as afore with great amount of care and before I conclude upon the merits of the dialectical contentions, I must certainly be aware of the difference in the manner in which Sections 66(2) and 66(11) of the KCS Act are intended to operate. While under Section 66(2), what is contemplated is the inspection of the books of accounts of the society, which clearly would reflect the fiscal health of the society; under Section 66(11), the Registrar has a greater power, namely, to cause an enquiry into any petition received by him and to inspect the affairs of the society periodically. The mandate of these two sections are not similar; but are, in fact, very different. In a manner of speaking, one can possibly say that the powers under section 66(11) are larger than the powers vested under Section 66(2); but while the Registrar acts under Section 66(2), his engagement must be solely with respect to the books of accounts of the society and its financial health. Therefore, the consideration that must heed to an order under section 66(2), in contradistinction to an order under section 66(11), must certainly hinge on the financial health of the society; whereas a decision to hold an enquiry under Section 66(11) is not merely on the financial aspects but on the general affairs of administration and all other incidental matters. 10. Therefore, the consideration that must heed to an order under section 66(2), in contradistinction to an order under section 66(11), must certainly hinge on the financial health of the society; whereas a decision to hold an enquiry under Section 66(11) is not merely on the financial aspects but on the general affairs of administration and all other incidental matters. 10. With the afore distinction in mind, when I examine Ext.P11 order, which is impugned in this writ petition, it is obvious that it has been issued invoking Section 66(2) of the KCS Act, rather than Section 66 (11) thereof. Obviously, therefore, I must consider the validity of this order from the touch-point of section 66(2) and not 66(11), even though Sri. Gilbert George Korreya submits that his client had approached the Registrar only, under Section 66(11). 11. On reading of Ext.P11 order, it becomes indubitable that on receipt of a complaint from the 3rd respondent, the Registrar got a preliminary enquiry done by the Assistant Registrar and a report was obtained from the said Authority, a copy of which has been referred to as item 2 in Ext.P11, based on which, the Registrar appears to have taken a view that an inspection of the books of accounts under section 66(2) of the KCS Act is necessary. However, the report of the Assistant Registrar afore mentioned, a copy of which is on record as Ext.R3(f), would clearly indicate that the complaint of the 3rd respondent was not confined to the financial health of the society, but that allegations therein are with regard to the general affairs and management of the society. It is therefore, needless to say that even if the Registrar had to act, he could not have acted under Section 66(2), since the 3rd respondent is not a creditor as is required under the said section, but that he could have invoked only Section 66(11) of the KCS Act. 12. Of course, at this time, Sri. It is therefore, needless to say that even if the Registrar had to act, he could not have acted under Section 66(2), since the 3rd respondent is not a creditor as is required under the said section, but that he could have invoked only Section 66(11) of the KCS Act. 12. Of course, at this time, Sri. Gilbert George Korreya submits that his clients can also be considered as a creditor because he has made certain fixed deposits with the Bank; but I am afraid that this would be of no avail to the 3rd respondent because, concededly, the allegations he has made in his complaint are not with respect to the books of accounts of the Society or with respect to its financial health, but with respect to its general affairs and other incidental matters. That apart, even if the petitioner is treated as being a creditor, he would obtain the locus to approach the Registrar under Section 66(2) only if he is able to show that the debt is due and that he has demanded payment of the same but has not received satisfaction within a reasonable time, as is stipulated under proviso (a) to the said section. These assertions, not even having been made, the locus of the petitioner to approach the Registrar under Section 66(2) becomes untenable. Therefore, even if the submissions of Sri. Gilbert George Korreya is taken into account by this Court, it would not tilt the position because, the Registrar certainly confirms in Ext.P11 that he has acted taking into account the complaint of the 3rd respondent made before him. 13. The above being so, Ext.P11 order suffers from an additional vice that its reading does not make it clear as to why the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has ordered an inspection under Section 66(2), apart from saying that he has “satisfied himself” of such necessity. The reasons that caused such satisfaction or the criterion that impelled him to enter into such a satisfaction are not, in any manner, evident from Ext.P11 and even if the said order is read in detail, these factors can never be comprehended by anyone. 14. I am, therefore, of the view that Ext.P11, tested from any angle whatsoever, cannot obtain the forensic support of this Court and therefore, must fail. 15. 14. I am, therefore, of the view that Ext.P11, tested from any angle whatsoever, cannot obtain the forensic support of this Court and therefore, must fail. 15. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P11 for the reasons above; however, leaving full liberty to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to act in terms of law, if it is so necessary; however, adverting to the specific provisions of the KCS Act and recording the reasons that persuades him to take a decision, if so warranted in future. If any such action is found necessary by the Registrar, he shall certainly issue notice both to the petitioner, as well as to the 3rd respondent and only thereafter finalise it. This writ petition is thus ordered.