An appeal against a Deputy Registrar's order to the Registrar is not maintainable under the MP Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.

1. The respondent No.2 / tenderer in terms of agreement entered into between the parties, raised a dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, under S.64 of MP / CG Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act, 1960).

2. The registrar, Cooperative Societies, in exercise of power conferred under S.66(3) of the Act, 1960, transferred the said dispute to Assistant Registrar, Sahakari Sansthayen, Rajnandgaon for disposal in accordance with law. Subsequently, Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society was posted on the said post and ultimately the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society passed the order on 09.03.2000 dismissing the claim of respondent No.2 herein and allowing the counter claim of petitioners herein.

3. Being aggrieved against the said order, the respondent No.2 assailed the same before the Registrar, Cooperative Society under the provisions of S.78 of the Act, 1960. The said appeal was allowed by the Registrar by order dated 09.04.2003. Questioning the legality and validity of said order dated 09.04.2003 passed by the Registrar, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Art.227 of the Constitution of India merely contending that Registrar having delegated its power under S.66(3) of the Act, 1960, to the Assistant Registrar / Deputy Registrar, could not have heard the appeal against the order of Deputy Registrar as the Deputy Registrar has passed the order being delegatee / nominee of the Registrar and as such, the appeal itself was not maintainable before the Registrar and as such impugned order deserves to be quashed being without jurisdiction & without authority of law.

4. On rule being issued, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 herein stating inter alia that against the order of Registrar, further remedy of Second Appeal was available to the petitioners, and as such, the writ petition, as framed and filed is not maintainable in law and the same deserves to be dismissed as the petitioners are having efficacious statutory alternative remedy of filing Second Appeal before the appellate forum.

5. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that against the order of Deputy Registrar being nominee or delegatee of Registrar under S.66(3) of the Act, 1960, the appeal was not maintainable in law and as such the exercise of appellate power by the Registrar was clearly unsustainable and bad in law and the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Arguing further, he would submit that writ petition was entertained on 27.04.2004 and as such the order itself is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, writ petition should not be dismissed at this stage on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

6. Shri PKC Tiwari, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 vehemently opposing the submission of petitioners would submit that petitioners having failed to avail the alternative remedy of filing of Second Appeal before the second appellate authority, the writ petition as framed and filed deserves to be dismissed as the question of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners herein can be raised and decided therein before the second appellate authority.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents, following two questions would arise for adjudication:
• Whether, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious statutory alternative remedy of filing second appeal before the second