JUDGMENT : The petitioner is the former Secretary of the Ranni Employees Co-operative Society Limited. He has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Exts.P1 to P5, P7 and P8. 2. The petitioner states that the Managing Committee of the Society increased collection of Fixed Deposits. The Committee appointed a Collection Agent for daily collection. Thereafter, discrepancies in collection were noted. Though the petitioner complained about the discrepancies, no action was taken. However, the Auditor issued proceedings against the petitioner demanding Rs.4,00,000/- from the petitioner. 3. CC No.375/2013 was filed against the petitioner in the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ranni. Two other criminal complaints were lodged in the Ranni Police Station. The petitioner was arrested and later released on bail. The Committee suspended him on 04.01.2018 initiating disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 04.01.2018, as per order dated 16.07.2019. 4. In the meanwhile, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies ordered inspection under Section 66(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, as per Ext.P1. Ext.P2 report dated 22.03.2018 was submitted by the Unit Inspector. The Joint Registrar, as per Ext.P3 order dated 26.03.2018, ordered a Section 68(1) inquiry. The Assistant Registrar General submitted Ext.P4 report dated 20.05.2018 fastening a liability of Rs.1,10,66,351/- upon the petitioner alone. The petitioner was served with Ext.P5 notice dated 17.07.2018 requiring to submit explanation. 5. The petitioner states that he was under detention in connection with the criminal case during the relevant time and hence did not receive the notice. Later, the petitioner attended a hearing conducted by the Joint Register under Section 68(2), on 14.08.2019. 6. The petitioner states that Ext.P4 report under Section 68(1) is dated 20.05.2018. However, reference No.5 in Ext.P5 show-cause notice refers to another report dated 22.06.2018. Two inquiry reports under Section 68(1) raise suspicion. The petitioner cannot be surcharged on the basis of two reports. The Joint Registrar, however, passed Ext.P7 surcharge order under Section 68(2) dated 18.02.2020 surcharging the petitioner for an amount of Rs.1,10,66,351/-. 7. Now, the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) has issued Ext.P8 demand notice dated 30.03.2023 seeking to recover Rs.1,70,31,266/-. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 objection. The Tahsildar (RR), however, issued Ext.P11 reply dated 03.10.2023 stating that revenue recovery proceedings cannot be stalled. The petitioner is challenging the orders passed under Sections 66 and 68 and Ext.P8 notice issued the Revenue Recovery Act. 8. 7. Now, the Deputy Tahsildar (RR) has issued Ext.P8 demand notice dated 30.03.2023 seeking to recover Rs.1,70,31,266/-. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 objection. The Tahsildar (RR), however, issued Ext.P11 reply dated 03.10.2023 stating that revenue recovery proceedings cannot be stalled. The petitioner is challenging the orders passed under Sections 66 and 68 and Ext.P8 notice issued the Revenue Recovery Act. 8. The petitioner states that none of the materials leading to Ext.P2 Section 66(1) report was served on the petitioner. Ext.P5 refers to a report dated 22.06.2018 under Section 68(1). The said report was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply requesting the Joint Registrar to furnish materials leading to Section 68 inquiry report to defend the same. However, Ext.P7 surcharge order was passed without providing any materials to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner states that in the judgment in Managing Committee, Chethakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.3864 represented by its President v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (W.A. No.1340/2021), this Court has held that if the Joint Registrar intends to proceed to the Section 68(2) stage, then he will be under a legal obligation to ensure that copies of Section 65/66 reports and Section 68(1) inquiry report should necessarily be given to the affected person. The surcharge proceedings against the petitioner without providing necessary documents are illegal and unsustainable. 10. The petitioner further states that he has not indulged in any irregular transactions in the Society. He has not caused any misappropriation or loss to the Society. The petitioner can prove the same if relevant materials leading to the proceedings initiated against him, are served on him. The petitioner has recorded every transaction at the Society in its Books and he can disprove the allegations against him, if the relied materials are given to him. 11. The 3 rd respondent opposed the writ petition filing a Statement. The 3 rd respondent stated that Ext.P3 order for Section 68(1) inquiry need not be served on the petitioner. The Section 68(1) report was sent to the petitioner on 12.11.2018 and it was received by the petitioner. 20.05.2018 is the date of the covering letter enclosing the Section 68(1) report dated 20.05.2018. There are no two enquiry reports as alleged by the petitioner. 12. Before Section 68(2) surcharge order of the Joint Registrar is passed, the Section 68(1) report is to be served on the petitioner. 20.05.2018 is the date of the covering letter enclosing the Section 68(1) report dated 20.05.2018. There are no two enquiry reports as alleged by the petitioner. 12. Before Section 68(2) surcharge order of the Joint Registrar is passed, the Section 68(1) report is to be served on the petitioner. It was sent to the petitioner by registered post with AD. The petitioner rejected the postal article sent. The Section 68(2) order was despatched to the petitioner on 25.02.2020. Reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. The writ petition is only to be dismissed, contended the 3 rd respondent. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 14. The Joint Registrar issued Ext.P1 order dated 03.01.2018 ordering inspection under Section 66(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Though the petitioner has a grievance that Ext.P1 order was not served on the petitioner, I find that an order of inspection need not be given to the petitioner in his personal capacity. In response to Ext.P1, the Unit Inspector submitted Ext.P2 report dated 20.03.2018 to the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar, by Ext.P3 order dated 26.03.2018, initiated Section 68(1) inquiry. The inquiry officer, the Assistant Registrar, submitted Ext.P4 report dated 20.05.2018, under Section 68(1). Thereafter, the Joint Registrar issued Ext.P5 notice dated 17.07.2018 to the petitioner requiring to submit explanation. It is to be noted that the petitioner was arrested in connection with alleged crime and was in jail from 10.06.2018 to 06.09.2018 while Ext.P5 notice was issued. Therefore, it was not served on the petitioner. 15. In the hearing held on 14.08.2019, the petitioner sought relevant materials including the reports, in order to effectively defend the proceedings. The relevant materials were not provided to the petitioner. Ext.P7 surcharge order was passed on 18.02.2020 imposing a liability of Rs.1,10,66,351/- on the petitioner. Subsequently, Ext.P8 revenue recovery proceedings were also initiated. There is no much dispute to the fact that the petitioner was not served with relevant materials when Section 68(2) proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 16. The relevant materials were not provided to the petitioner. Ext.P7 surcharge order was passed on 18.02.2020 imposing a liability of Rs.1,10,66,351/- on the petitioner. Subsequently, Ext.P8 revenue recovery proceedings were also initiated. There is no much dispute to the fact that the petitioner was not served with relevant materials when Section 68(2) proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 16. This Court has held in the judgment in W.A. No.1340/2021 and connected cases that if the Joint Registrar intends to proceed to the Section 68(2) stage, then he will be under a legal obligation to ensure that copies of Section 65 / Section 66 reports, as the case may be, and Section 68(1) inquiry report should necessarily given to the affected person concerned, before proceeding further in relation to the steps contemplated under Section 68(2). So also, all materials, on the basis of which the adverse findings are made against the affected persons, as per Section 65 / Section 66 reports and Section 68(1) inquiry report should also be given to the affected persons. 17. In view of the law laid down by this Court and on the basis of admitted facts, Ext.P7 proceedings is unsustainable in so far as it relates to the petitioner. Consequently, Ext.P8 revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner also cannot stand the scrutiny of law.Exts.P7 and P8 are therefore set aside in so far as they are applicable to the petitioner. The matter is remitted back to the 1 st respondent-Joint Registrar, who may proceed under Section 68(2) against the petitioner after making available to the petitioner copies of all relevant materials based on which surcharge proceedings are initiated.