JUDGMENT : The Board of Management of the 2nd petitioner Society and the Society have preferred this writ petition. They are aggrieved by the proceedings initiated under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This litigation has a chequered career. The Society had, in its meeting held on 25.11.2002, decided on the feeder categories with respect to the service under the Society. The decision was approved on 30.1.2004 by the 1st respondent, as seen from Ext.P13. On 22.8.2009, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P14 notice to the Society seeking a report regarding the appointment of persons without sanction for the post. The Society submitted Ext.P15 explanation stating that appointments have been made only for the posts 1st permitted in the approved feeder category. Thereafter, the respondent permitted appointment to the post of Security Personnel as per Ext.P16 dated 3.3.2010. On 6.2.2012, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 order directing an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act into six aspects specified in the notice. The notice was challenged in W.P.(C)No.4403 of 2012 by the President of the Society and by Ext.P2 order dated 27.2.2022, this Court directed status quo to be maintained. It is submitted that the said order was in force till 27.10.2021 on which day this Court, by Ext.P5 judgment, closed the writ petition in view of the order in Contempt Case No.1468 of 2021. Ext.P4 is the order in the Contempt Case, which was closed recording paragraph 10 of the affidavit filed by the 1st respondent requesting to withdraw Ext.P1 order and the subsequent order dated 4.8.2021 produced as Ext.P3 in this writ petition, with liberty to issue fresh enquiry order and requesting to exonerate the contemnor from further proceedings in the matter. It can be seen from Ext.P3 that it had been issued based on the same set of facts, which led to Ext.P1. 2. During the pendency of W.P.(C)No.4403 of 2012, the 1st respondent had issued orders including the 2nd petitioner Society as a Class I society under Rule 36 Appendix III of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The Bank is also running a hospital by the name Kandala Co-operative Hospital as a separate unit of the Bank for which sub-rules were approved by the 1st respondent by Ext.P18 order dated 2.6.2015. The Bank is also running a hospital by the name Kandala Co-operative Hospital as a separate unit of the Bank for which sub-rules were approved by the 1st respondent by Ext.P18 order dated 2.6.2015. It is stated that the Bank has constructed various buildings and purchased vehicles with proper valuation certificates and sanctions. The documents relating to the same have been produced as Exts.P19 to P21. After Ext.P5 judgment, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P12 order dated 24.1.2021 directing an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act. According to the petitioners, even though the Enquiry Officer was convinced that the allegations in Ext.P12 were not correct, Ext.P6 report was filed with a finding as to certain irregularities. It can be seen from Ext.P6 that the enquiries were ordered into appointments made allegedly without sanction, failure to re-classify the Bank with effect from 20.11.2012, making unauthorised constructions, the improper sanction of loan to Maranelloor Ksheerolpadaka Society, apart from aspects like financial position of the Society, the grant of loans, conduct of MDS, proceeding on deposits, giving excessive interest on deposits causing loss to the Bank and regarding the constitution, functioning, administration and financial stage of the Society. According to the petitioners, Ext.P6 was not communicated to the President or the Committee members, and their explanations were also not sought. It is also stated that pages 1 to 3 of Ext.P6 were not communicated to the 2nd petitioner along with Ext.P6. 3. On 11.5.2022, the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P7 explanation to Ext.P6 report pointing out that the contents of Ext.P6 are not correct and that the Bank has been functioning satisfactorily for the past several years. It is also requested that further action based on the Section 65 report may be dropped. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P8 notice asking the petitioners to show cause why action should not be taken under Section 32(1)(a)(c) of the Act based on Ext.P6 report and directing appearance on 28.6.2022. The writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P12, P6, and P8 whereby Section 65 enquiry was initiated, the report filed, and it was proposed to take further action on the report. 4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that Section 65 enquiry was ordered based on a recommendation of the Cooperative Vigilance (Southern) as per report No.CVE 21/16 dated 13.6.2017, which had been forwarded to the 1st respondent by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that Section 65 enquiry was ordered based on a recommendation of the Cooperative Vigilance (Southern) as per report No.CVE 21/16 dated 13.6.2017, which had been forwarded to the 1st respondent by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is submitted that the report was forwarded to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Neyyattinkara, for preliminary inspection, who had submitted a report dated 13.12.2017, which has been produced as Ext.R1(a). It is further stated that an explanation had been sought from the Society vide letter dated 13.4.2018, to which the Society had submitted Ext.R4(b) reply. It is further stated that after considering the explanations in detail, the 1st respondent had called for a report from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on certain aspects, which have been shown as items 1 to 6 in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. The report of the Assistant Registrar dated 18.12.2020 is produced as Ext.R1(c). The above-said aspects mentioned in the counter affidavit are the reasons for the issuance of the order dated 4.8.2021. In fact, Ext.R1(c) was produced as an exhibit in Contempt Case No.1468 of 2021, which was closed as per Ext.P4 judgment. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that Ext.P12 proceedings whereby Section 65 enquiry was ordered was despatched from the Office of the Secretary on 25.11.2021 by ordinary post, which is stated to have been a clerical error. It is further stated that Enquiry Officer visited the Society on 26.11.2021 and made an entry in the minutes book of the Society that an enquiry was ordered by the Joint Registrar. It is submitted that the petitioner did not make any request for the enquiry order, and such a request was made only on 20.6.2022, long after the submission of the enquiry report. The contention of the 1st respondent is that the attempt is to sabotage the enquiry proceedings and consequential action. It is further stated that notice under Section 32 of the Act was issued on 8.6.2022, that copy of the enquiry report had already been given to the 2nd petitioner Society and an explanation had also been filed, and that an enquiry was conducted on 28.6.2022. It is further stated that notice under Section 32 of the Act was issued on 8.6.2022, that copy of the enquiry report had already been given to the 2nd petitioner Society and an explanation had also been filed, and that an enquiry was conducted on 28.6.2022. It is further stated that the copy of the report was served on the Society in a representative capacity, and once the report is given to the Secretary, it has to be assumed that the report has been served on the Board of Directors. It is contended that there is no enabling provision in the Act for serving a copy of the report to the Director Board Members and that the petitioners have never made any request for such a report. 5. The additional 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and additional respondents 5 and 6. The additional 4th respondent is a former member, and it is their case that the President of the Bank is a very influential person. It is stated that Exts.P6, P8, and P12 are directed against individual members constituting the Managing Committee as opposed to the Managing Committee or the Co-operative Society and therefore the writ petition by the Society's Board of Management or the Society is not maintainable. The counter affidavit justifies the actions taken against the Board of Directors and some documents to show earlier conducts of the President have also been produced alongwith. 6. Heard Sri P.V.Baby on behalf of the petitioners, Sri N.Anand on behalf of respondents 4, 5 and 6 and Smt.Mable C.Kurian, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 7. The counsel for the petitioner contends that Ext.P6 enquiry report was communicated only to the 2nd petitioner and was not communicated to the members of the Board of Directors as is contemplated in Rule 66 of the Rules. Another contention that is taken is that the report has not been prepared in accordance with the Rules and the required annexures were also not available in the report. It is also submitted that the copy of the report, which was subsequently served on the 1st respondent, did not have the necessary annexures as contemplated in the Rules. Another contention that is taken is that the report has not been prepared in accordance with the Rules and the required annexures were also not available in the report. It is also submitted that the copy of the report, which was subsequently served on the 1st respondent, did not have the necessary annexures as contemplated in the Rules. It is contended that if the law requires a certain thing to be done in a particular manner, that has to be done in that manner or not at all. It is pointed out that Ext.P12, the order directing enquiry under Section 65 issued on 24.11.2021, was forwarded to the Secretary only along with a covering letter dated 21.6.2022. It is stated that the covering letter also does not say anything about the communication of the order to the members of the Board of Directors. Another contention taken is that Ext.P12 only contains general aspects, and the specific aspects on which the enquiry is ordered are not stated. Reference is made to Ext.P6, which does not contain any endorsements regarding the communication. Specific reference is made to Rule 66(5), and it is contended that the report does not contain the latest balance sheet of the Society and the cost of the enquiry or inspection together with reasons and the manner in which the entire cost or part thereof should be apportioned among the parties specified in Section 67. It is also pointed out that the Rule requires that the copy of the order authorising enquiry has to be issued to the President or the Secretary of the Society concerned by registered post; acknowledgment due, which has admittedly been not done. The counsel also referred to the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and submitted that it is admitted that the notice was not sent in the manner specified and that copy of the order was given to the petitioner only on 20.6.2022. Regarding the proceedings whereby the enquiry was ordered, it is submitted that as per Rule 66(1)(c), the order should contain the specific point or points on which the enquiry or inspection is to be made, the period within which the enquiry or inspection is to be completed and the report submitted to the Registrar. It is submitted that no such specific point has been formulated. It is submitted that no such specific point has been formulated. Reliance is placed on the decision in Ellakkal Service -Co-operative Bank v. State of Kerala [ 1997 (2) KLT 85 ] to submit that the notice issued was not proper. It is also submitted that the report is bad for want of annexing the latest balance sheet of the Society. On merits, regarding the appointments made, it is pointed out that in Ext.P15, which was submitted years back, it has been specifically stated that appointments have been in accordance with the approved feeder category and the list of the employees appointed to the approved post has also been annexed in the said document which was issued in 2009. Exts.P16 to P24 are also referred to show that none of the allegations can be sustained. The counsel placed reliance on the decisions in State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan [ILR 1998 (1) Ker. 146], Sudarsanan v. State of Kerala [ 1997 (1) KLT 957 ], Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies [ILR 2022 (2) Ker.108] and The President, Managing Committee, The Kudayathoor Service Co-Operative Bank Limited v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Socities (G) & Ors. [ILR 2022 (2) Ker.553]. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that even going by the judgment in Ellakkal (supra), if notice is accepted, the mandatory condition of sending by registered post need not be insisted upon. It is submitted that Ext.P7 clearly shows that the notice has been received and explanations were submitted. The counsel placed reliance on the judgments reported in Union of India & another v. Vicco Laboratories [2007 KHC 7834], Reji K.Joshy & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. [ 2022 (3) KHC 317 ], Managing Committee, Pala Marketing Co-operative Society v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2021 KHC 3455] and the judgment in W.P.(C)No.10128 of 2018. Regarding the balance sheet, the enquiry report that was placed before the Court on directions issued, shows as Annexure 17, a document titled “tentative balance sheet as on 31.12.2021”. The contention is that there is no requirement that the balance sheet should be that of a year end as in the case of auditing. What was required for the purpose of Rule 66 is only “a latest balance sheet of the Society”. The contention is that there is no requirement that the balance sheet should be that of a year end as in the case of auditing. What was required for the purpose of Rule 66 is only “a latest balance sheet of the Society”. It is submitted that the balance sheet can be prepared on any day to show the then existing position of a business concern. Unlike in the case of balance sheet prepared for accounting purposes and auditing purposes, Rule 66(5) only requires annexing a latest balance sheet, which according to the counsel has been done in the case on hand. It is pointed out that Annexure 17 in the report has been titled as a tentative balance sheet as on 31.12.2021. It is hence submitted that the requirement of Rule 66 has been satisfied and the proceedings cannot be challenged on those grounds. It is also pointed out that the objections submitted by the 2nd petitioner as Ext.P7 do not say anything about the contention that the report did not contain all the required annexures. 9. The counsel for the additional 4th respondent contended that there is no requirement that the balance sheet need not be one prepared at the end of the financial year, and what is required is only a balance sheet. It is submitted that since the report was prepared on 22.1.2022, the balance sheet pertaining to 31.12.2021, which is the previous month end, has been produced. It is submitted that there is no impropriety or illegality in annexing the said balance sheet. The counsel endorsed the arguments of the Senior Government Pleader with regard to the other points. 10. In reply, the counsel for the petitioners pointed out Sections 2(4) and 64(b) of the Act to submit that the balance sheet is to be prepared at the end of the year. It is further submitted that the copies of documents that have been relied on were not supplied to the petitioner, which is a requirement under the Rule. It is further submitted that the explanation submitted in Ext.P7 has not been considered at all while arriving at the conclusion. 11. In Ellackal (supra), this Court held that as per Rule 66, issuing notice by registered post is mandatory. It is further submitted that the explanation submitted in Ext.P7 has not been considered at all while arriving at the conclusion. 11. In Ellackal (supra), this Court held that as per Rule 66, issuing notice by registered post is mandatory. For the reason that the notice was accepted and responded to, the Court held that even though there is a mandatory requirement, the same need not be insisted upon. The Court also held that the annexing of balance sheet is a mandatory requirement. The words “invariably contain” were interpreted to mean it is an absolute necessity. 12. In Vicco (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the normal rule is that the Court should not interfere at the stage of a show cause notice unless it is made out that the notice was without jurisdiction or an abuse of process of law. The above decision was followed in Pala Marketing (supra) and the judgment in W.P. (C)No.10128 of 2018. In Reji(supra), a Full Bench of this Court considered the question whether the opportunity of being heard provided for in Rule 66(5) of the Rules has application to every action to be taken pursuant to report of enquiry or inspection and held that the Rule does not contemplate any such opportunity except with regard to proposal of the Registrar for ordering cost of inspection. 13. Applying the law laid down in the above referred cases to the facts of this case, the petitioners have approached this Court at the show cause notice stage and they have ample opportunity to explain their cause before the statutory authority. The only question is whether the respondents have followed the procedure prescribed by law, for the issuance of the show cause notice. As held in Ellackal (supra), it cannot be insisted that the notice ought to have been sent by registered post, since the petitioners have admittedly received notice. However, the question remains whether the petitioners are being afforded a meaningful hearing in the sense that the copy of the enquiry report that was served on them is not complete in terms of Rule 66. There is no case for the respondents that the copy of the annexures in the report were served on the petitioner. In particular, there is no case that the copy of the latest balance sheet was annexed. 14. There is no case for the respondents that the copy of the annexures in the report were served on the petitioner. In particular, there is no case that the copy of the latest balance sheet was annexed. 14. The tentative balance sheet as on 31.12.2021 was made available only when this Court had called for the entire enquiry report. The index of the report shows that there are several documents which have been annexed to the report. However, there is no contention for the respondents that the annexues including the tentative balance sheet had been served on the petitioners. The very purpose of serving the documents is to ensure that the persons who are put on notice are able to answer the allegations knowing fully well, the case that is put forward against them. Going by the words “a latest balance sheet of the Society” contained in Rule 66, it may not be possible to hold that the balance sheet that accompanies the report should always be the latest audited balance sheet. However, the language of the Rule is not in clear terms. The words “a” and “latest balance sheet” cannot go together and it can only be “the latest balance sheet”. Even if it is to be read as “the latest balance sheet, since there is no prescription that it should be the balance sheet that is prepared at the end of the financial year, one cannot find fault with a balance sheet prepared at the end of the previous month of the date of submission of the enquiry report, being annexed to the report. However, the fact remains that even the said balance sheet was not made available to the petitioners. It is also evident from the report that with regard to the previous financial year end also, there was no audited balance sheet available and all that was available was only the tentative balance sheet. A tentative balance sheet is always subject to correction. As such, it was always open to the petitioners to point out any defect in the tentative balance sheets which can be a defence in their favour. As held in Ellakkal (supra), annexing the balance sheet is a mandatory requirement. The words “shall invariably” in Rule 66(5) over emphasises the requirement. Hence to that extent, the procedure followed by the respondents cannot be justified. 15. As held in Ellakkal (supra), annexing the balance sheet is a mandatory requirement. The words “shall invariably” in Rule 66(5) over emphasises the requirement. Hence to that extent, the procedure followed by the respondents cannot be justified. 15. On 27.6.2022, while admitting the writ petition, this Court had directed the petitioners to participate in the hearing proposed to be held on 28.6.2022 and the 1st respondent was directed to complete the proceedings after hearing the petitioners. It was however, directed that final orders shall be issued only after getting orders from this Court. In view of the finding that the report that was served on the petitioners is not a complete document and the copy of the balance sheet was not served, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to issue to the petitioners the copies of the annexures accompanying the enquiry report within one week from today. The petitioners shall, on receipt of the said documents, submit additional explanations, within 10 days therefrom. The 1st respondent shall thereafter hear the petitioners and finalise the proceedings in accordance with law.