JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner pledged 3239 grams of gold ornaments in the 1 st respondent-Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited No.87. Loans became overdue. Hence, the Bank scheduled auction of the said gold ornaments. In the auction conducted on 23. 06. 2015 a few of her gold ornaments were sold. The petitioner had sent a notice on 27.06.2015 objecting to the auction and her intention to participate in the auction. A false reply was sent and ignoring objections of the petitioner the 1 st respondent proceeded with the auction on 08.08.2015. The petitioner went to participate in the auction, but she was not permitted to participate in the whole of the process. The 2 nd respondent and its officials without conducting any auction made clandestine documents of an auction and gave the petitioner’s ornaments to the proxies of the officials for a very low price. Moreover, the 2 nd respondent made a false claim that an amount of Rs.20,33,127/- was still due from the petitioner. 2. Aggrieved by the said illegal acts and similar malpractices in the gold loans on the part of the officials of the Bank, the petitioner lodged various complaints. On the instructions of the 2 nd respondent, an enquiry was conducted by the 3 rd respondent. The report of that enquiry is Ext. P6. Although several malpractices were revealed in the enquiry, no action in that regard was taken yet. Owing to that inordinate delay, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to conduct further enquiry into the allegations raised by the petitioner, in the light of Exhibit-P6 report submitted by the 3 rd Respondent. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2 nd respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and a chance to adduce documents when the enquiry is conducted by the 2 nd respondent herein.” 3. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 producing therewith Exts.P7 to P13. 4. The 2 nd respondent has submitted a statement dated 12.02.2025 explaining the steps taken by the Department following the complaint submitted by the petitioner. Paragraph Nos.5 to 7 in the said statement are extracted below: “5. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2021 producing therewith Exts.P7 to P13. 4. The 2 nd respondent has submitted a statement dated 12.02.2025 explaining the steps taken by the Department following the complaint submitted by the petitioner. Paragraph Nos.5 to 7 in the said statement are extracted below: “5. It is submitted that the complaint received by this respondent was forwarded to the third respondent in order to take further action. The third respondent after going through the records kept by the Bank had submitted primary report dated 08.03.2017 to this respondent. It is found that the petitioner was given enough time to settle her loan accounts and the auctions were postponed on four occasions upon her request. The third respondent had further reported that there were some procedural lapses in the process of conducting the auction. This respondent again directed the third respondent to have a detailed report on the complaint. The third respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 31.05.2017, submitted the report on 26.07.2017. It was found that the Bank had conducted the auctions without having proper minutes but has recorded the proceedings in papers and also the details of the persons participated in the auctions were not kept properly. Thereafter this respondent had sought clarification from the Bank with regard to the said defects and the Bank had replied that those are the procedures followed by them and to take necessary actions in future. No further action was taken upon the report as it was found that no injustice was caused to the petitioner and moreover the Bank has initiated rectification of the procedures. 6. Meanwhile an inquiry under Sec.65 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act was going on upon the request of the Bank when they found irregularities in maintaining gold stock and illegal transactions in internal checking vide letter dated 20.01.2016. This respondent after verifying the same, had issued order for conducting the said inquiry, in which the procedures adopted in the matter of gold loans were also included. The findings in the report were communicated to the Bank and given opportunity of hearing to the Bank authorities in this regard. The Bank had informed that they have taken necessary steps upon the irregularities committed by the staff by terminating them from service, filing criminal cases and also by recovering the loss occurred to the Bank. The findings in the report were communicated to the Bank and given opportunity of hearing to the Bank authorities in this regard. The Bank had informed that they have taken necessary steps upon the irregularities committed by the staff by terminating them from service, filing criminal cases and also by recovering the loss occurred to the Bank. In the report the loss occurred to the Bank evenafter the auction of gold loans of the petitioner was also mentioned along with the details of arbitration cases filed against her to recover the same. 7. It is submitted that no further action was taken upon the report submitted by the Assistant Registrar on 26.07.2017 as the Bank had started rectification measures upon the procedural lapses after such defects mentioned in the report were communicated to them and also due to the internal checking followed by the inquiry conducted as per Sec.65 in the Bank. It was found that no justice was denied to the petitioner in settling her loan accounts as she was given enough time and information about the auctions conducted and also she was not able to produce sufficient documents prove her allegations. It is also submitted that in the requests made by the petitioner for the postponement of auctions had agreed that she would be responsible for all the losses that might be occurred due to such actions.” 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent. 6. Apart from the complaint of the petitioner in the above regard, another complaint, Ext.P5, regarding the same and similar other incidents was filed by Sri. Krishnakumar. A before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. Based on that complaint a crime as VC-13/17/TSR was registered and an investigation was conducted. Alleging delay in completion of investigation in that matter the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.26589 of 2019. That writ petition was disposed of today with the following directions: “the 1 st respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, VACB, Thrissur to take necessary steps for obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1) of the PC Act in terms of the final report in VC-13/17/TSR. Suffice it to say that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is bound by the time schedule prescribed in Section 19 of the PC Act while considering an application for sanction for prosecution.” 7. Suffice it to say that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is bound by the time schedule prescribed in Section 19 of the PC Act while considering an application for sanction for prosecution.” 7. Meanwhile, upon the complaint of the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent directed the 3 rd respondent to conduct an enquiry. A report was submitted by the 3 rd respondent after an enquiry before the 2 nd respondent on 26.07.2017, a copy of which is Ext.P6. The malpractices committed by the officials of the bank have been revealed in the enquiry. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance wing of the Co-operative Department also several irregularities and illegalities were revealed, but the 2 nd respondent did not take any effective action on the said report. Ext. P7 is that report. The learned counsel would submit that in the said circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs she sought in this writ petition. 8. It is seen that an enquiry as contemplated in Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 was also conducted in regard to the alleged malpractices in the Bank concerning gold loans. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent did not take any further action pursuant to the findings and recommendations in Ext.P6, P7 and also the report on enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 9. The findings in Ext.P7 are mostly about the auction held on 08.09.2015 of the gold ornaments pledged by the petitioner. The auction held on the afternoon of the said date was said to be in violation of Rule 76(xii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 and also noticed other procedural irregularities. The petitioner was not allowed to participate in the auction as well. Of course, no relief pertaining to Ext.P7 is sought by the petitioner. However, it being a report that came subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the findings thereon are liable to be reckoned with. 10. The stand taken by the respondents is that necessary actions based on the report of enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act were already taken and as the investigation was about to be completed, the department need not take any further action in the matter. As stated, an investigation was conducted on Ext. 10. The stand taken by the respondents is that necessary actions based on the report of enquiry under Section 65 of the Co-operative Societies Act were already taken and as the investigation was about to be completed, the department need not take any further action in the matter. As stated, an investigation was conducted on Ext. P5 complaint and filing of a final report seeking prosecution of the bank officials is in contemplation. Beyond that, the grievances set forth by the petitioner are concerning the loss occasioned to her on account of the auction conducted by the bank in flagrant violation of the rules and regulations. When there are already reports of enquiry and the Bank is claimed to have taken necessary actions as per the recommendations in the reports, the scope of issuing specific directions in that regard is remote. However, the 2 nd respondent is obliged to look into the remedial actions taken by the bank and to ensure that no such irregular or illegal acts occurred in future. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the 1 st respondent has initiated arbitral proceedings against the petitioner under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act claiming that more amount after appropriating the auction price is due from the petitioner. It is alleged that the price obtained by selling her gold ornaments in auction was insufficient to clear the debt. Exts.P8 to P13 are copies of the summons issued to her in such arbitral proceedings. The vires of the said proceedings cannot be considered or decided in this writ petition. Rather, that is not the matter in issue involved in this writ petition. 12. Of course, the petitioner has a further grievance that she sustained loss of a huge amount due to the illegal auction sale of the gold ornaments she had pledged with the 1 st respondent-bank. That question also is beyond the scope of this writ petition, firstly since no such relief is sought and secondly, that it is a serious question of facts to be decided by the appropriate authority in a duly instituted proceedings. I make it clear that the petitioner has every right to initiate appropriate action in order to redress her grievance in that matter in accordance with law, including under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules. I make it clear that the petitioner has every right to initiate appropriate action in order to redress her grievance in that matter in accordance with law, including under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent to take appropriate action as mentioned above in the light of Exts.P6 and P7 reports. It is made clear that the petitioner shall have every right to take appropriate action in order to ventilate her grievance in the matter of auction of the gold ornaments pledged by her with the 1 st respondent-Bank and the contentions of the respective parties in that regard are left open.