JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, Nilambur Co-operative Urban Bank approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order of the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Malappuram. 2. The Joint Registrar interfered with the selection process initiated by the petitioner for appointment to the post of peon/watchman. 3. The process for the selection to the post of peon/watchman was initiated as early as in the year 2011. Due to many intervening factors and circumstances, the process could not be completed. The present selection process is based on a notification dated 25.6.2014. 4. The process of selection contains a written test. The candidates, who have applied for the post will have to appear for the written test. The answers will have to be given in the question paper provided. An external agency conducts the written test. The written test was conducted on 23.4.2017 at Nilambur Government Manavedan Higher Secondary School. The leakage of the question paper attributed to the cancellation of the selection process. It is found in the impugned order that the question paper was found out from the school premises. The second respondent and others registered a complaint stating that the candidates have been fixed in advance before the selection and that the written test was only a farce. 5. The matter gained the attention of this Court in W.P.(C).No.20759/2017 at the instance of the second respondent, who challenged the selection process. There were also challenges made by some other candidates, who had taken part in the selection. This Court disposed the writ petition on 11.3.2019 noting the fact that the matter related to corruption and loss of secrecy in the selection process was under consideration of the Joint Registrar. 6. The Joint Registrar passed the impugned order on 15.6.2019 to cancel the selection holding that the secrecy of the written test was not kept intact. He particularly noted the leakage of the question paper on the same day and its availability to the public. Ext.P7 is the said order. This was also produced as Ext.R1(c) along with the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Registrar. There is no dispute to the fact that the question paper produced as above was not the question paper circulated in the written test. The secrecy of the examination was lost. Ext.P7 is the said order. This was also produced as Ext.R1(c) along with the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Registrar. There is no dispute to the fact that the question paper produced as above was not the question paper circulated in the written test. The secrecy of the examination was lost. If the question paper was available in the public domain, it has to be assumed that the agency failed in conducting the written test in a fair and transparent manner. 7. However, the question that looms large in this writ petition is whether the Joint Registrar has any power to cancel the selection process. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Joint Registrar cannot invoke his power under Rule 176 of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 to interfere with the selection process in the co-operative banks. According to him, the challenge can be made only after the appointment is over and that too invoking Section 69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (for short, the “Act”). The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Akalakunnam Village Service Co-op Bank Ltd. v. Binu, N. and others [2014 (4) ILR 605], the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2119/2016, dated 16.7.2018, and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Swathy Mohan and Others v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam and Others [ 2019 (4) KHC 451 ]. 8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the second respondent would argue that the Joint Registrar had only invoked power under Section 66 of the Act and not under Rule 176 of the Rules. Learned Government Pleader placed reliance on the judgments in Aji v. State of Kerala [ 1995 (1) KLT 363 (FB)] and Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [ 1992 (1) KLT 381 ]. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 66 of the Act confers only a supervisory jurisdiction and the Joint Registrar has no authority or power to pass an order interfering with the selection process. 10. The Joint Registrar has no case that he passed such an order invoking power under Rule 176 of the Rules. The matter now falls within the ambit of Section 66 of the Act. 10. The Joint Registrar has no case that he passed such an order invoking power under Rule 176 of the Rules. The matter now falls within the ambit of Section 66 of the Act. Then only question that is to be considered is the legality of the order passed under Section 66 of the Act. 11. Section 66 confers supervisory powers on the Registrar in relation to the working of the Co-operative Society. This is essentially a power to ensure compliance of the Bye-laws and statutory provisions and to confine the working of the society within the bounds of the law. Therefore, it is 'power coupled with duty' to ensure compliance of the Bye-laws and statutory provisions by the Society. See for support on power coupled with duty, Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford [(1880) 5A. C 214], Anns and others v. London Borough of Merton [(1977) 2 All ER 492] and Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji [ AIR 1952 SC 16 ]. On supervision, if the Registrar finds any lapses on the part of the Society in complying the Bye-laws and statutory provisions, necessary directions can be given to ensure compliance. When statutory provisions give the power to achieve certain objectives, the authority to whom such power is conferred has the duty to perform its obligation to achieve such objectives of the statute. If the power of such supervision does not include a power to issue any direction, that power would become meaningless and redundant. The Joint Registrar, therefore, has the necessary power to supervise the conduct of examination and ensure transparency and fairness of such examination. In that process, if any defect is noted, he can very well issue directions to cure such defects. The Full Bench of this Court in Aji's case [ 1995 (1) KLT 363 ] and the Division Bench in Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank's case [ 1992 (1) KLT 381 ] reiterated the power of the Joint Registrar in issuing direction in exercise of supervisory power. 12. This Court need not reverse the finding of facts recorded in the impugned proceedings as the same was based on materials. Since the secrecy of the examination was not secured, the Joint Registrar was justified in interfering with the selection process. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 12. This Court need not reverse the finding of facts recorded in the impugned proceedings as the same was based on materials. Since the secrecy of the examination was not secured, the Joint Registrar was justified in interfering with the selection process. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The written examination can be conducted afresh based on the notification after intimating all eligible candidates, who have applied. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.