basis of the audit report. It was contended that, it was initiated with an ulterior motive as a prelude to superseding the committee, due to political reasons. It was further contended that the misappropriation was clearly attributable to the Secretary evidenced by Exts.P1 to P3. Necessary action was initiated against the Secretary which clearly showed that the Society was acting bonafide. It was further contended that, it has been held in Mellukara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.PT 1152 and Another v. Joint Registrar (General), District Cooperative Society (2018(2) KLT 640) that, S.65 of the Act is clear that, it can be issued only on proper satisfaction by the Joint Registrar regarding the allegations. It was also contended that, in Elakkal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1997(2) KLT 85) it was held that, it was not sufficient for the Registrar to act solely upon the reports of other officers, when there is nothing else on record to show that he had entered into a subjective satisfaction as required under S.65 of the KCS Act to cause an inquiry. It was contended that the allegations raised are vague, the order was passed under S.65 of the KCS Act mechanically by the Joint Registrar without due application of mind and consequently, the order is liable to be set aside. It was contended that the order, except stating that the authority bonafide believed that S.65 enquiry was necessitated, did not give any reasons.
