The main legal point established in the judgment is that the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 affects the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society and has filed the instant petition primarily seeking quashing of the inspection note (Annexure P-4) submitted by respondent no. 4 and has further sought quashing of office order dated 16.8.2016 (Annexure P-6) whereby the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala has, on the basis of the inspection note, ordered an inquiry (surcharge proceedings) against the petitioner under Section 69 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”) by appointing the Block Inspector as an Inquiry Officer, who has further been directed to submit his report within one month.

2. In addition to the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice (Annexure P-12) issued to it seeking therein its justification and comments regarding appointment of two employees being in violation of the applicable laws.

3. The petitioner was asked to justify the maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Act.

4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that no such statutory remedy is available to the petitioner and, therefore, it has filed the instant petition.

5. We have gone through the provisions of the Act and Rules and are of the considered view that the petitioner has not only an alternative but efficacious statutory remedy available to it under the Act.

6. Chapter-VIII of the Act specifically deals with the audit, inquiry, inspection and surcharge. Section 65 therein deals with inspection of cooperative societies. Section 67 deals with inquiry by the Registrar. Whereas, Section 69 relates to surcharge proceedings, which are to be initiated in case during the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a co-operative society, it is found that any person who is or was entrusted with the organization or management of such society, or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to the provisions of the Act, the rules or the bye-law or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to the society, the Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, inquire himself or direct any person authorized by him, by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person.

7. Chapter-XII relates to the jurisdiction, appeal and review and the relevant provisions for the adjudication of this petition is contained in Section 94, which reads thus:

“4. Review and Revision:— (1) The State Government except in a case in which an appeal is preferred under Section 93 may call for an examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or any proceedings of the Registrar or of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit.

(2) The Registrar may at any time:—

(a) review any order passed by himself;

(b) call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or the proceedings of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority and if it appears to him that any decision, order or award or any proceedings so called or should for any reason be modified, annulled or reversed, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit;

Provided that, before any order is made under sub-section (1) and (2), the State Government or the Registrar as the case may be shall afford to any person likely to be affected adversely by such orders an opportunity or being heard.

“Provided further that every application under sub-section (1) and (2), to the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be shall be made within ninety days from the date of the communication of t