JUDGMENT : The petitioner who is a member of the 3rd respondent society, and who was also the President of Managing Committee of the society till 17.07.2017, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 proceedings initiated against him by the 2nd respondent, on the basis of a report on inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). In the Writ Petition, the challenge against Ext.P1 proceedings is primarily on the contention that the inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act was ordered on the basis of a report submitted by the Co-operative Vigilance, Central Zone dated 03.09.2011, which in turn was based on complaints by various persons alleging misappropriation of funds by the Managing Committee of the Society, of which the petitioner was a member. It is the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act could not have been initiated on the basis of a Vigilance Report under Section 68A of the Act, and hence, the proceedings culminating in Ext.P1 order are vitiated and liable to be set aside. It is also contended, in the alternative, that the report of the Vigilance Officer under Section 68A was drawn up by an Officer in the Rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, whereas the provisions of Section 68A of the Act clearly mandate that the Enquiry Officer could not be below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. 2. Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, the stand taken is that, inasmuch as Section 68 permits the Registrar to inquire himself, or through any person authorised by him, into the conduct of any person, inter alia, entrusted with the organisation or management of a society, in circumstances where an objectionable conduct is noticed in the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or winding up of a society, an inquiry done by the Vigilance Officer under Section 68A can also be material relied upon by the Registrar for initiating proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act, that culminate with an order under Section 68(2) of the Act. To the same effect are the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. 3. To the same effect are the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. 3. I have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam duly assisted by Sri.Arun Chandran appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader Smt.Mable C.Kurian appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Smt.Dhanya P.Ashokan appearing for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri.Ranjith Xavier, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Bank. 4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of Section 68 of the Act that, the basic materials which must inform the Registrar for initiating action under Section 68(1) are the report of an audit, inquiry or inspection of a society, or material obtained during the course of winding up of the society. The terms “audit, inquiry and inspection” used in Section 68(1) of the Act are an obvious reference to the procedure contemplated under Sections 64, 65 and 66 of the Act. Although the word “inquiry” is also used in Section 68A with reference to the inquiry to be done by the Vigilance Officer, I am of the view that the said inquiry by the Vigilance Officer cannot be the basis of an inquiry by the Registrar under Section 68(1) of Act. This is particularly so because, when I look at the provisions of Section 65 of the Act, the inquiry by the Registrar under that Section can also be based on an inquiry report of the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A of the Act. The inescapable conclusion therefore is that while the inquiry report of a Vigilance Officer under Section 68A can be the basis of an inquiry by the Registrar under Section 65 of the Act and a report drawn up thereunder, the inquiry report under Section 68A cannot by itself be the basis of a proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act. It may not be out of place to mention at this stage that although the word “enquiry” and “inquiry” are often used interchangeably in common parlance, there is a difference between the two terms in the context of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in that the former is used in the general sense of “asking”, whereas the latter is used in connection with the making of a formal investigation. The aforesaid distinction is made only in British English and one does not find the distinction in the U.S and Australian use of the English language. At any rate, for our purposes, since the statute in question uses the two words distinctly and not interchangeably, I am of the view that the word “enquiry” must be taken as a reference to proceedings where the person seeking a report does not control the manner and conduct of an inquiry and the word “inquiry” to such cases where the person seeking the report either does the investigation by himself or controls the manner and conduct of the investigation by another. Viewed in this backdrop, it becomes clear that whereas in Sections 63, 65 and 66 of the Act, the inquiry is to be done by the Registrar himself, in Section 68A the inquiry is done by the Vigilance Officer at the instance of the Registrar who seeks only a report pursuant to an inquiry to be conducted by the Vigilance Officer. In my view, inasmuch as the express provisions of Section 68(1) mandate that it can only be material obtained in the in course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or winding up of a society that can inform the Registrar to act either on his own motion or otherwise to inquire into the objectionable conduct of such persons as are enumerated in the Section, the Registrar cannot act on the basis of an inquiry report of the Vigilance Officer under 68A for the purposes of initiating proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act. As already noted, the Inquiry Report of the Vigilance Officer under Section 68A of the Act could be the basis for the Registrar initiating proceedings under Section 65 and drawing up a report in accordance with the said Section, which then could be the basis for proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. The report under Section 68A cannot, without a further inquiry by the Registrar, be the basis for any action under Section 68 of the Act. I, therefore, find that Ext.P1 order, which is based on a Vigilance Report under Section 68A of the Act, which in turn was relied upon in Ext.P3 report under Section 68(1) of the Act cannot be legally sustained. I, therefore, find that Ext.P1 order, which is based on a Vigilance Report under Section 68A of the Act, which in turn was relied upon in Ext.P3 report under Section 68(1) of the Act cannot be legally sustained. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed by quashing Ext.P1 order but without prejudice to any proceedings that may be initiated by the respondents under Section 65 of the Act, if so warranted in law.