complained of, had taken place while the previous committee was in office. Taking note of the various contentions raised and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides, the learned single Judge passed the impugned judgment. A scanning of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned single Judge considered the question whether the petitioner/the appellant got the locus standi to impugn the communication under Ext.P4, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based on mere apprehension that the proceedings that would follow Ext.P4 would result in a prejudicial order against the petitioner. After considering Exts.P3 and P4 evidently, the learned single Judge arrived at a conclusion that the first respondent herein had specifically mentioned the points to be enquired into, in Ext.P4, on his subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity to conduct an enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In such circumstances, according to the learned single Judge the mere apprehension cannot be a reason for interfering with Ext.P4.
