ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is sought to be challenged mainly on the ground that even if the petitioner-appellant did not file any reply, it was incumbent upon the authority to conduct inquiry, as envisaged under Section 30 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (for short, 'the Act of 2001'), in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Geeta Patel v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2014) 3 WLC (Raj.) 13]. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that merely because reply was not submitted, the authority proceeded to mechanically examine the allegations without conducting due inquiry and without recording specific findings on the following points, namely, (a) Loan was not distributed; (b) manager was illegally allowed to continue after the age of superannuation and (c) the relevant record and documents were not provided at the time of inquiry under Section 55 of the Act. 4. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Amongst various considerations, the learned Single Judge has considered the admitted position on record that despite copies offered to be supplied, no reply was filed. Even when the appellant sought for supplying certain documents, the authority sent a letter dated 06.07.2021 for collecting documents, the appellant did not appear nor collected documents. The order of dissolution of the managing committee of the society came to be passed by the authority considering that there was nothing on record to show that the society was ever engaged in disbursal of the loans. As there was no material on record and the records of the society were not being disclosed by the appellant, the authority had no option but to record a finding that there was no material to show that loans were disbursed. This finding satisfies the requirement of conducting inquiry in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to urge before the Court that there was non-cooperation on the part of the bank, due to which, loans could not be disbursed. This is the only justification for not disbursement of the loan which should have been placed by way of reply before the concerned authority. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant sought to urge before the Court that there was non-cooperation on the part of the bank, due to which, loans could not be disbursed. This is the only justification for not disbursement of the loan which should have been placed by way of reply before the concerned authority. The factum of non-disbursement of the loan being undisputed, impediment was required to be stated by filing reply along with the documents, which was not done. 7. It is also sought to be urged that the Managing Committee was well within its authority to allow to continue the manager in service beyond the age of superannuation, to which we find that no reply on the line was ever filed before the authority much less disclosing relevant provision of law under which such extension could be granted by the Managing Committee in favour of retiring manager. Irrespective of the documents, appearance was required to bring to the notice of the inquiry officer, a provision of law (Act, Rules and Regulations and bye-laws) under which such extension beyond the age of superannuation could be granted. No such material was placed before the authority. Neither in the writ petition, nor even before this Court in appeal, any provision was brought to the notice of this Court empowering the Managing Committee to extend the services beyond the age of superannuation. Indisputably, the appellant was given a notice. In reply to the notice, the appellant was required to disclose the authority under which extension was granted to the manager because connected with that allegation. Further allegation is that more than Rs. 34 lacs were paid. 8. Lastly, there is allegation that records were withheld and not disclosed when the inquiry was conducted under Section 55 of the Act. The findings, which have been recorded by the authority, satisfy the requirement of conducting inquiry in a given case. Conduct of inquiry will depend upon the nature of the defence. In the present case, as allegation was non-disbursal of the loan amount, which was not reflected from any material. It was incumbent on the appellant to disclose such material that the loans were actually disbursed of providing justification under the law, due to which loans could not disbursed but nothing was done. 9. In the present case, as allegation was non-disbursal of the loan amount, which was not reflected from any material. It was incumbent on the appellant to disclose such material that the loans were actually disbursed of providing justification under the law, due to which loans could not disbursed but nothing was done. 9. In view of the aforesaid consideration, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 10. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.