JUDGMENT : JOHNSON JOHN, J. 1. The appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, President of the Kottayam District Vyapari Vyavasayi Welfare Co- operative Society, challenged Exhibit P1 order dated 11.11.2024 of the Joint Registrar (General) of the Co-operative Societies appointing an officer to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the Kottayam District Vyapari Vyavasayi Welfare Co-operative Society regarding 9 irregularities enumerated in the order under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘Act, 1969’ for short). 2. Heard Sri.P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. T.K. Vipindas, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri. Arjun Raghavan, the learned counsel appearing for the 4 th respondent. 3. The main contention of the appellant is that the learned single Judge has not considered the challenge against Exhibit P1 order by holding that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said order at this stage and that he can raise his objections only before the competent authority as and when further proceedings are initiated on the basis of the inquiry report either under Section 32 or Section 68 of the Act, 1969. 4. It is pertinent to note that the inquiry ordered under Section 65 of the Act, 1969 is not against the writ petitioner and only regarding the irregularities mentioned in the said order and therefore, the writ petitioner cannot be treated as a person aggrieved. In Reji K. Joshy and Others v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam and Others , 2022 (3) KHC 317 , this Court held thus: “ ...The scheme of the Act appears to us to be that the correctness or otherwise of the report of inquiry or inspection, shall be canvassed by the parties concerned in the hearing provided to them on the further action taken pursuant to the report, for the hearing would not serve any purpose if the Registrar does not propose any action based on the report. Even if the Registrar proposes any action, be it under Sections 32 or 68, the said action being one on the basis of the report of inquiry or inspection, the essential purpose of the opportunity of hearing in the proceedings initiated for taking action being to enable the parties concerned to canvass for the correctness of the findings in the report of inquiry or inspection, there is no need for a hearing before a tentative decision is taken on the action based on the report. Needless to say, it is unnecessary to have two hearings for the same purpose. In other words, we are of the view that the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the authorities under the Act does not imply any obligation to hear the parties concerned on the acceptability or otherwise of the report of inquiry or inspection as the case may be, before a tentative decision is taken on the further action on the report. ...” 5. In Managing Committee, Vellathooval Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) and another, 2020 (1) KHC 746 , this Court held thus: “4. When I peruse the statutory provisions, I find that Ext.P4 communication that is impugned in the Writ Petition is one that is traceable to the provisions of R.66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and it is merely an intimation to the petitioner, of the order recording the subjective satisfaction of the Registrar, as regards the necessity to conduct an enquiry in the manner stipulated under S.65(1) of the Act. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has The locus standi to impugn the said communication before this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, on a mere apprehension that the proceedings that would follow will result in a prejudicial order against the petitioner. In my view, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved at this stage of the proceedings, merely on the basis of an apprehension, howsoever strong, that the proceedings initiated under S.65 will ultimately culminate in an order prejudicial to its interests. In my view, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person aggrieved at this stage of the proceedings, merely on the basis of an apprehension, howsoever strong, that the proceedings initiated under S.65 will ultimately culminate in an order prejudicial to its interests. I am of the view that when a final order is passed against the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act and Rules, the petitioner can move this Court through a Writ Petition on satisfying the conditions regarding maintainability of a Writ Petition at that stage.” 6. As noticed earlier, Exhibit P1 order passed under Section 65 of the Act, 1969 is for conducting inquiry regarding the irregularities of the functioning of the society and there is nothing in the said order to show that the same is against the appellant/writ petitioner. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.