The discretion vested in a judicial or quasi-judicial authority must be exercised without reference to any extraneous considerations and without being influenced by any outside authority.

1. The petitioner is the Secretary or Mulakulam Panchayat Service Cooperative Society, Ltd, No. 209. The affairs of the Society are vested in a Managing Committee consisting of 11 members There was some fued among the members of the Managing Committee. A complaint was filed by the petitioner against one P I Mathew in the Munsiff-Magistrate's Court. This has resulted in bitter animosity between the petitioner and the said Mathew. It is averred in the petition that a complaint was filed against the petitioner by the said Mathew to wreak vengeance against him before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The complaint contained allegations of misappropriation of funds. The Deputy Registrar visited the society on 12 111973 and made physical verification of the cash. He addressed the President of the Society to tender explanation, after such inspection, pointing out the irregularities discovered by him. The Managing Committee sought explanation from the petitioner. He submitted a detailed explanation, Ext. P1. This explanation was accepted by the Managing Committee and Ext. P2 resolution was passed by majority vote accepting the petitioner's explanation.

2. While the matters stood thus, the President of the Society received a letter Ext. P3 dated 30 41975 from the 1st respondent-Registrar of Co. operative Societies, Trivandrum, with two enclosures, Exts. P4 and P5. Ext. P3 directs action to be taken against the petitioner. The enclosures are two copies of letters from the Secretary to the Government, to the first respondent. The President of the Society declined to take action. Ext. P-6 is the letter by the President of the Society. Ext. P-6 also was approved by the majority of the members of the Managing Committee, which resulted in Ext. P7 resolution. The petitioner has come to this Court with two prayers: (1) to quash Exts. P-3, P-4 and P-5 and (2) quash all proceedings taken against him in crime No. 9 of 1974 initiated by the 3rd respondent, the Director of Vigilance Investigation, Trivandrum.

3. The society, I am told, was superseded and administrators were appointed for the governance of the Society. Thereafter a new committee came into existence. The 4th respondent is the Society. Respondents 5 and 6 are members of the Committee who are opposed to the petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 oppose the application and this opposition is supported by respondents 5 and 6

4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit supporting the petitioner's stand. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent-Society submitted before me that in spite of the fact that a new Committee came into existence, be had no instructions against the stand taken by the Society in the counter-affidavit already filed and therefore it has to be presumed that the society sticks to the original stand taken in the counter-affidavit.

5. The stand taken by the Government Pleader is that the first respondent is, in law, justified in issuing the directions to the Society to take appropriate action against the delinquent and that Ext. P-3 is in conformity with law and that it cannot, be called in question in this Court in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution.

6. Alternatively, it is contended that the petitioner has a remedy by way of appeal against Ext. P3 under S.87 of the Co-operative Societies Act and not having resorted to this alternative remedy, this writ petition abates and has to be dismissed.

7. Additional respondents 5 and 6 have echoed these contentions before me.

8. Regarding the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the 3rd respondent, the petitioner's counsel did not press this prayer, perhaps for obvious reasons. I do not think that in this case criminal proceed-ings legally initiated by the Investigating machinery can be quashed. The only alarming situation is that though the complaint appears to have been filed as early as in 1974, nothing has been done so far and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed.