JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, Mulavoor Urban Co-operative Society Limited (‘the Society’ in short)represented by its Secretary and its Managing Committee members have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P13 order dated 29.01.2018 passed by the 1st respondent, Ext.P14 Notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the President/Secretary of the petitioner Society to produce records before him on 19.03.2018 at 11.00 A.M and Ext.P15 Notice dated 02.05.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent addressed to the 2nd petitioner to appear on 16.05.2018 at 11.00 A.M for hearing. The other reliefs sought in the writ petition are for three declarations that an enquiry on an inspection under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act (‘the Act’ in short) without following the principles of natural justice and intimating the affected parties the material on which enquiry is concluded is a nullity in the eye of law and the said report cannot be acted upon any purposes under the Act; that acceptance of the report under Section 65 or Section 66 of the Act without following procedure under Rule 66 (5) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, (‘the Rules’ in short) is bad in law and the actions taken thereunder are illegal and unauthorised; that the proceedings initiated under Section 68(1) of the Act against the members of the managing committee are bad in law as the materials do not discloses ingredients for action under Section 68 and because of the facts that the amounts alleged to have been recovered in full and therefore there is no justification for the action under Section 68 of the Act. 2. While admitting this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order 13.05.2018 staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13 for a period of three months and the said interim order was extended lastly for a period of one month as per order dated 22.12.2020. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a Counter affidavit dated 18.06.2020 opposing the prayers in the writ petition contending, inter alia, that on 06.06.2016 a Mass Petition against the working of the Society was submitted by certain members of the Society under the leadership of Mr. Sunil T.R and signed by other 75 members alleging very serious allegations against the working of the Society before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam. Sunil T.R and signed by other 75 members alleging very serious allegations against the working of the Society before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam. The said petition was forwarded to the 1st respondent on the basis of which the enquiry under Section 65(1) was ordered that Ext.P13 order issued by the 1st respondent under S.68(1) is perfectly legal and valid that; Ext.P14 was issued to the President and Secretary of the Society to get ready with the records and it is a routine procedure of enquiry; that Ext.P15 that is a notice issued to one of the members of the Society to appear in person on a particular day as a part of enquiry; that the copies of Day book produced by the petitioners showing that the amount recovered from some members is incorrect because the Enquiry Report shows only lump amount and not the described defaulters; that the 1st respondent is unable to accept such explanation before conducting the enquiry under S.68(1); that Ext.R1(d) Quick Verification Report submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau shows serious irregularities; that Rs.2 crore 8 lakhs has been paid as MDS advance on 12.02.2016 and 10.03.2016 to 52 persons with Rs.4 lakh each; that all the beneficiaries are the near relatives of the President and Committee Members; that the property pledged for these loans are the same and owned by the president and even the persons with no membership in MDS are allowed to avail advance; that 22 relatives of the president are allowed to avail Rs.7 lakh each without proper narration in the loan records; that even though all these loans are repaid there was criminal conspiracy in availing these loans; that Mulavoor Vanitha Society is permitted to avail Rs.65 lakhs as MDS advance even though has no connection with the petitioner Bank; that there are allegations against its President and its wife for possessing properties disproportionate to their income and the same is under detailed verification by the Vigilance; and that Vigilance Quick Verification recommends to initiate criminal prosecution against the President and their relatives under Section 13(1)(c) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act 1988 and Section 409 and 120B of IPC. 4. No Reply affidavit is seen filed by the petitioner. 5. I heard the Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. George Poonthottam instructed by Adv. Mr. Arun Chandran and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. 4. No Reply affidavit is seen filed by the petitioner. 5. I heard the Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. George Poonthottam instructed by Adv. Mr. Arun Chandran and the learned Senior Government Pleader Mr. Bimal K. Nath. 6. It is seen from Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.01.2017 that the Society had approached this Court earlier challenging the order by which the enquiry was ordered into the affairs of the Society and the said order was quashed since it is conceded from the side of the respondents that the impugned order was not in accordance with the requirements of Rule 66 of the Rules. In Ext.P2, it is made clear that the said judgment would not preclude the competent authority from passing fresh orders under Section 65 of the Act. Thereafter the 1st respondent passed Ext.P3 order appointing the enquiry officer under S.65(1) (a) and (d) of the Act r/w. Rule 66 of the Rules. It appears from Ext.P13 that the enquiry officer appointed as per Ext.P3 submitted a Report dated 20.10.2017 and on the basis of the said Report Ext.P13 order is passed appointing the Unit Inspector, Muvattupuzha to conduct enquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act. 7. It is seen that Ext.P13 order is passed by the 1st respondent appointing the Enquiry Officer considering the need to conduct enquiry under S.68(1) of the Act. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments with regard to the legality of Ext.P13 order passed by the 1st respondent raising two specific contentions -(1) Ext.P13 does not disclose the ingredients under S.68(1) of the Act and (2) The finding of personal liability is not there as required under S.68(1) of the Act. 9. The learned counsel relied on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Reji K. Joshy and Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Kollam and Ors. [ 2022 (3) KHC 317 ], the Single Bench decision of this Court in Vincent Y.R. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies [ILR 2024 (1) Ker. 344] which is confirmed in the judgment dated 18/01/2024 in W.A.No.95/2024, the judgment dated 14.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.41566/2023 in support of his contentions. 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader cited the judgment dated 29.02.2024 in W.A.No.595/2021 and the judgment dated 26.03.2024 in W.A.No.1748/2023 in support of his contentions. 11. 344] which is confirmed in the judgment dated 18/01/2024 in W.A.No.95/2024, the judgment dated 14.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.41566/2023 in support of his contentions. 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader cited the judgment dated 29.02.2024 in W.A.No.595/2021 and the judgment dated 26.03.2024 in W.A.No.1748/2023 in support of his contentions. 11. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to S.68(1) of the Act and argued that enquiry therein can only be against the person who is found responsible in the course of an audit, enquiry, inspection or winding up of a Society and it cannot be against the managing committee of the Society. He specifically referred to the words 'any person' and 'such person' occurring in S.68(1) of the Act. He argued that this issue is covered in the decision Y.R. Vincent (supra). 12. This Court held in Paragraph No.14 of the decision Y.R. Vincent (supra) that a reading of the Section would show that it refers to ‘any person’ and not to a ‘committee’; that if the intention was only to take action against the members of the Committee the Section need not have referred to ‘any person entrusted with organization or management of the Society’ or ‘who is or has at any time be an officer or an employee of the society’; that it refers to the conduct of the individuals and not the collective conduct of the committee; that there are provisions in the Act which deal with collective conduct of the committee and that the contention of the Government Pleader that the word persons would also include the Committee cannot be sustained. In paragraph No.16 of the said decision, this court held that the question is whether there is any finding regarding the conduct of ‘any person’ and the Court found that there is no specific finding regarding the involvement of the petitioners as is required under the statutory provisions in the said case. The Court held that a finding regarding the involvement of the persons mentioned in the provision in the manner provided therein is necessary for the purpose of surcharging them. The Court held that a finding regarding the involvement of the persons mentioned in the provision in the manner provided therein is necessary for the purpose of surcharging them. With respect to the manner of fixing liability on the persons this Court held in Paragraph 17 held that coming to the manner in which the liability is fixed on the petitioner in the impugned order, what has been done is only a reassessment of the liability and that as far as the fixation of liability on individuals is concerned, the Section 66 Enquiry Report does not specify any person individually and instead only makes mention of the Committee as a whole. In W.A. No.95/2024 against the said Single Bench Judgment, the Division Bench of this Court found that the finding of the learned Single Bench by remanding the matter is perfectly legal and justified. Though the counsel for the appellant therein sought liberty to the Court to withdraw the writ petition with a request that the Registrar may pass an order by fixing the time line the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the appeal directing the Registrar to pass a fresh order within a period of one month. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that since the writ petition leading the decision in Vincent Y.R. (supra) is withdrawn the said decision has gone. I am unable to accept the said argument since the Division Bench has confirmed the finding of the Single Bench and though there was a prayer to withdraw the writ petition, the same was not granted, but only a time limit was fixed within which the Registrar is to pass orders in compliance with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 13. In view of the decision in Vincent Y.R. (supra) which is confirmed by the Division Bench the enquiry under S.68(1) can only be against persons and not a committee. I have no doubt with regard to the said proposition of law. S.68(1) of the Act has unequivocally states that the enquiry therein could only be against a person and it is clear that such person does not include either the committee or the Society. The surcharge action under S.68 is to protect the Society from erring persons who is in the management of the Society. S.68(1) of the Act has unequivocally states that the enquiry therein could only be against a person and it is clear that such person does not include either the committee or the Society. The surcharge action under S.68 is to protect the Society from erring persons who is in the management of the Society. Such person can either be the member of the managing committee or any other person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of such Society or who is or has any time being an officer or an employee of the Society. Surcharge proceedings are primarily intended for recovery of the loss occasioned to the Society on account of the action on the part of such person causing loss to the Society. When a person surcharged under S.68 as per Rule 44(1)(l), he is disqualified for being elected or appointed as member of the committee of the Society. The intention of the legislature is to avoid such persons from the management of the Society. 14. In the case on hand, on a perusal of Ext.P13, it is revealed that the Enquiry Officer is appointed to enquire with respect to the loss and the persons responsible for loss found in the Enquiry Report under S.65 of the Act. There is no reference to the Society or its Committee. In such case, the persons responsible for the loss alone can raise objection against Ext.P13. The 1st petitioner Society is not in anyway aggrieved by Ext.P13 order. The Society is not under obligation to protect the members of its managing committee since Ext.P13 order is against the persons who has caused loss. The present writ petition at the instance of the 1st petitioner Society is not maintainable. 15. The first contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the details of persons are not found in Ext.P13 order as required under S.68(1). The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to Ext.R1(c) Enquiry Report under S.65 in which the names of the persons who are responsible for the loss are specifically stated. 16. First of all, Ext.P13 is only an order appointing Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry under S.68(1). S.68 permits either the Registrar himself to conduct enquiry or to direct any person authorised by him to enquire into the conduct of the persons responsible. 16. First of all, Ext.P13 is only an order appointing Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry under S.68(1). S.68 permits either the Registrar himself to conduct enquiry or to direct any person authorised by him to enquire into the conduct of the persons responsible. An Order like Ext.P13 is necessitated only when he chooses not to conduct enquiry by himself. If he wishes to conduct enquiry through another person, he can simply pass an order even without reference to any of the ingredients mentioned in S.68 and without reference to the persons responsible. Such requirements are to be complied only in the Enquiry Report under S.68(1) and not in an Order appointing Enquiry Officer under S.68(1) to conduct enquiry as an Order appointing Enquiry Officer is only a step taken by the Registrar prior to the conduct of enquiry. 17. Even otherwise, with respect to the description of the persons responsible, I am of the view that the names of the persons need not be specifically stated in an order to initiate enquiry under S.65(1). If the persons could be identified with the description available in the order, it is in sufficient compliance of S.68(1). 18. Here, Ext.P13 order specifically refers to the persons responsible for loss found in the Enquiry Report under S.65. It, by necessary implication, refers to the persons who were found responsible for the loss in Ext.R1(c) Report. No prejudice of any kind is caused to the petitioners 2 to 8 in understanding the persons responsible for the loss from Ext.P13 Order. Since they correctly understood that the persons responsible for loss are them, they filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P13. 19. The second contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the ingredients enumerated in S.68(1) is not specifically stated in Ext.P13 order. Here also, I am of the view that the ingredients need not be repeated in an order appointing enquiry officer under S.68(1) as the same is issued on the basis of an Enquiry Report under S.65 of the Act. 20. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, I am of the view that Ext.P13 order appointing the Enquiry Officer is perfectly valid and legal and hence no reliefs can be granted in this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.