JUDGMENT : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. These intra-court appeals have been filed at the hands of the 1 st appellant - Co-operative Society and the 2 nd appellant, claiming to be the Chairman of the society, being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.103487/2024 and W.P.No.103488/2024 dated 22.06.2024 and an order passed in the Review Petition No.100112/2024 c/w Review Petition No.100113/2024 dated 04.12.2024. 2. Since the impugned orders arise from the common order passed at the hands of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, these two appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. During the course of the proceedings additional documents are filed at the hands of the appellant-society and the same are taken on record. 4. The appellants had filed the writ petitions calling in question the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Karwar in an appeal filed at the hands of respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein. Initially, respondent No.5/Kanara District Central Co-operative Bank Limited (‘KDCC’ for short) had initiated proceedings vide communication dated 31.07.2019 made by the Managing Director of KDCC Bank addressed to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, with a copy marked to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies seeking initiation of proceedings against the appellant–society for recovery of various loans lent by the Bank to the appellant–society between 2017-18 and 2018- 19. Following the request made by the KDCC Bank, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies appointed an Inquiry Officer in terms of Section 64(1) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘Act’, for short) to inquire into the affairs of the appellant–society. However, there was a change in the Inquiry Officer and after the subsequent change, the Inquiry Officer held an inquiry and submitted a report to the Registrar of Societies in terms of Section 64(2) of the Act. 5. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry under Section 64 of the Act and submitted a report. However, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies found that the report is not specific in fixing the liability and the exact amount that is due to be paid to the KDCC Bank. Accordingly, by communication dated 31.08.2020, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies requested the Managing Director of the KDCC Bank to initiate proceedings under Section 65B of the Act for inspection of the records of the appellant-society. Accordingly, by communication dated 31.08.2020, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies requested the Managing Director of the KDCC Bank to initiate proceedings under Section 65B of the Act for inspection of the records of the appellant-society. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated by the KDCC Bank under Section 65B of the Act and after verification of the records of the society a report was once again filed by an officer of KDCC Bank in terms of Annexure-A which was filed along with the writ petition. The officer of the KDCC Bank submitted a report and thereafter Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an order on 18.12.2021 directing initiation of recovery proceedings and criminal proceedings. The appellant-society thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Act for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,58,18,207/- against eight persons including respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein. An order of attachment before judgment was passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies on 05.01.2023. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 106(1)(h) of the Act, being aggrieved of the orders passed under Section 68 of the Act, i.e., order dated 18.12.2021. 6. However, it is the contention of the of the learned senior counsel Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil appearing for the appellants that in the appeal filed by respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein, the society was not arrayed as party-respondent to the proceedings. The appellants therein had only arrayed the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Managing Director of the KDCC Bank and the Inspection Officer appointed by the KDCC Bank as party- respondent to the proceedings. It is further contended that the appeal was filed on 20.02.2024, listed on 29.02.2024 and it was adjourned to 05.03.2024 and on 05.03.2024, the appeal was allowed. One more appeal was filed by respondent No.6 in the connected writ appeal. Both the appeals were disposed of by order dated 05.03.2024 without even hearing the Managing Director of the KDCC Bank. 7. The learned senior counsel would also contend that an appeal under Section 106 of the Act could be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of the order impugned therein. However, it is clear from the appeal memo filed at the hands of the appellants therein that they had raised a challenge to the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 and the appeal was filed on 20.02.2024. However, it is clear from the appeal memo filed at the hands of the appellants therein that they had raised a challenge to the impugned order dated 18.12.2021 and the appeal was filed on 20.02.2024. It is also pointed out that a separate application for condonation of delay was filed in the appeal filed at the hands of respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein, but not in the appeal filed at the hands of other appellant. Nevertheless, it is submitted that even without considering and passing an order on condonation of delay, the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 8. Further, the learned senior counsel would submit that initially the learned Single Judge had passed an order dismissing the writ petition on 22.06.2024 on two grounds, namely, that the appellant-society herein has no locus to challenge the order and secondly, that if the appellant is aggrieved, it has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 106(2)(b) of the Act. Subsequently, on a review petition filed at the hands of the appellants herein, the learned Single Judge admitted that there was no appeal provision available for the appellants herein under Section 106(2)(b) of the Act. However, on the other ground that appellants had no locus, the original order was sustained. 9. Learned senior counsel would contend that once the surcharge proceedings are initiated at the hands of the appellant-society under Section 69 of the Act, which is the statutory procedure contemplated after implication made against the Board of Management or the office bearers of the Managing Committee, following an audit, inquiry, inspection or winding up orders passed against the society, notices were issued and the contesting respondents have appeared before the competent authority. It is submitted that pursuant to the inspection and the report submitted under Section 65B of the Act and a subsequent order passed under Section 68 of the Act, implicating respondent Nos.6 to 8 herein along with other persons who were managing the society at the relevant point of time, and the liability was fixed under the inspection report and the order was passed under Section 68 of the Act, without impleading the appellant-society, the contesting respondents herein could not have filed an appeal invoking Section 106 of the Act without impleading the society. Learned senior counsel would submit that once there is a finding rendered in the inspection report fixing the liability on any person, it would be the bounden duty of the society to initiate surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Act and accordingly, the society initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Act. It is further submitted that the contesting respondents herein appeared before the proceedings initiated under Section 69 of the Act and therefore, when they were aware of the proceedings initiated at the hands of the society, they could not have filed an appeal without impleading the appellant-society. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is no locus available for the appellant-society to question the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, cannot be sustained. It is submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has passed the impugned order without looking into the records. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos.6 to 8 would submit that from the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that proceedings were initiated by the Managing Director of the KDCC Bank for recovery of certain sums said to be due to KDCC Bank. Learned counsel would submit that even if it is true that surcharge proceedings were initiated by the appellant- society under Section 69 of the Act, nevertheless, it cannot be contended that the society is the aggrieved party, since the surcharge proceedings were also initiated by the society only for recovery of the amount due in terms of the inspection report and the order passed under Section 68 of the Act, which were admittedly orders passed on the proceedings initiated by the KDCC Bank and not the appellant-society. Even otherwise, it is submitted that by virtue of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the matter has been remanded back for fresh inquiry, and therefore, the appellant-society cannot claim that it is aggrieved by such an order of remand. 11. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil for the appellants, learned counsel Sri.Sourabh Hegde for contesting respondent Nos.6 to 8, learned counsel Sri.A.P.Hegde Janmane for respondent Nos.4 and 5, the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the appeal memo. 12. 11. Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil for the appellants, learned counsel Sri.Sourabh Hegde for contesting respondent Nos.6 to 8, learned counsel Sri.A.P.Hegde Janmane for respondent Nos.4 and 5, the learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the appeal memo. 12. The only question that requires to be considered in these writ appeals is, whether the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant-society had no locus to question the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies who had directed fresh inquiry under Section 65B of the Act is sustainable? 13. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, it is clear that the proceedings were initiated at the hands of the KDCC Bank for recovery of certain sums said to be due from the appellant-society. This aspect of the matter cannot be denied by the appellants. However, it is sought to be contended that, once the surcharge proceedings are initiated under Section 69 of the Act, it was incumbent upon contesting respondents, who preferred an appeal before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to have impleaded the appellant- society. This contention does not impress this court. The question as to whether a party is a necessary and proper party to the proceedings depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No doubt, the appellant- society has initiated proceedings under Section 69 of the Act, which are surcharge proceedings for recovery of the amounts from the persons who are required to repay the money. When admittedly the genesis of the inquiry was at the behest of the KDCC Bank, the appellant-society cannot claim that the society had initiated proceedings to recover the same. Ultimately, the surcharge proceedings initiated at the hands of the appellant-society is only for compliance of the orders passed by the competent authority for recovery of any amount. When admittedly, the proceedings were initiated by the KDCC Bank for recovery of its amount due from the appellant-society and subsequently, surcharge proceedings are initiated by the appellant-society, it is only to satisfy the orders passed by the competent authority. It would have been a different case, if the proceedings were initiated by the society seeking an inquiry into the affairs of the society which is permissible in law. No such action was initiated by the appellant-society. It would have been a different case, if the proceedings were initiated by the society seeking an inquiry into the affairs of the society which is permissible in law. No such action was initiated by the appellant-society. Therefore, the appellant-society cannot claim to be an aggrieved party insofar as the appeal filed by the contesting respondents herein who were aggrieved of the inspection report and the subsequent order passed under Section 68 of the Act. As clearly noticeable what is questioned by the contesting respondents in their appeal is the order dated 18.12.2021 which was passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 68 of the Act. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has allowed the appeal partly while remanding the matter back for reconsideration in terms of Section 65B of the Act. It is also noticeable that in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, there is a finding that the Managing Director of the KDCC Bank has admitted that there are certain lapses in the inspection report filed under Section 65B of the Act. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, not only on the ground that appellant-society has no locus to question the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies but also since the matter has been remanded back for fresh consideration from the stage of Section 65B of the Act. Ultimately, if there is re-iteration of the earlier finding and the liability is fixed on any of the office bearers of the society, then the society would be entitled to proceed under Section 69 of the Act. 14. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER : Both the writ appeals are dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeals, pending I.A’s if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are dismissed.