B. M. LAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 17-12-1981 passed by the respondent No 1, Board of Revenue, filed in the petition as annexure-HH. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to this petition are as under : respondent No. 5 Shri lal Brijendra Singh was appointed as Branch Manager on 1-9-1960 by virendra Co-operative Central and Land Mortgage Bank Ltd. , Khairagarh. He continued to work in the said Bank till this Bank was amalgamated in district Co-operative Central Bank, Durg (respondent No. 4 ). Later on, the respondent No. 5 on 25-4-1974 applied for seeking voluntary retirement oa the ground of his ill health. The same was accepted by the resolution passed on 28-6-1974 by the working committee of the respondent No. 4. But on 12-7-1974, respondent No. 5 applied for grant of earned leave for six months. The same was granted. Later on, it appears that by his application dated 20-11-1974, the respondent No. 5 applied to the respondent No, 4 for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. However, the respondent No. 4 by its letter dated 4-12-1974 informed the respondent No. 5 that It v as not possible to accept the letter of withdrawal of his retirement. He was, thereafter, not taken on duty and was treated retired with effect from 19-11-1974 i. e. , after the expiry of 120 days earned leave. On 9-12-1974 it appears that the respondent No. 3 again submitted his representation to the respondent No- 4. The same was rejected. His review application was also rejected. On 3-12-1975, the respondent No. 5 filed a dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Raipur Division, Raipur challenging the earlier resolutions by which his applications referred to above were rejected by the respondent No. 4. This dispute was purported to have been raised under Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. His review application was also rejected. On 3-12-1975, the respondent No. 5 filed a dispute before the Registrar, Co-operative societies, Raipur Division, Raipur challenging the earlier resolutions by which his applications referred to above were rejected by the respondent No. 4. This dispute was purported to have been raised under Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. ( 3 ) IN between, it appears that due to formation of new revenue district of Rajnandgaon, the territorial jurisdiction of respondent No. 4 was bifurcated in two parts and as such the petitioner, District Co-operative Central bank, Rajaandgaon came in:o existence as a registered body with effect from 3-12-1974, according to which transfer of employees, and other liabilities and assets of respondent No. 4, was to be done according to the territorial jurisdiction transferred inter se. ( 4 ) THE Deputy Registrar by his order retired the respondent No, 5 from service against which the latter filed appeal before the Joint Registrar against the order of the Deputy Registrar passed on 15-3-1980. The petitioner was also impleaded as a party before the Joint Registrar teirg a necessary party. The Joint Registrar by his order dated 27-1-1981 allowed the appeal accepting all the submissions of the respondent No. 5 and directed that the retirement of respondent No. 5 will be governed by the Service Rules cf District co-operative Central Banks Rajnandgaon, ie , the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 on 3-2-1981 reported to the petitioner and requested to take him on duty The petitioner, thereafter applied to the Joint Registrar for setting aside his order dated 27-1-1981 on the ground inter alia that it was not a party to the earlier proceeding acd, therefore, the order against It is bad in law. However, District Durg. as stated aforesaid, was already bifurcated into two revenue districts and by virtue of that, this petitioner Bank came into existence. The Joint Registrar dismissed the review petition a gainst which the petitioner Bank preferred appeal before the respondent No. J, Board of revetue which by the impugned order dated 17-11-1981, i. e. , petitioner's annexure-HH remanded the case to the Joint Registrar for apportioning the liability of the petitioner and issuing directions to the respondent No. 4, district Co-operative Central Bank, Durg to pay the salary and allowances as directed by the Joint Registrar. It is against tbis order that the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. ( 5 ) NONE appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 also remained unrepresented. Shri P. S, Das, Advocate represented respondent no. 5. ( 6 ) I have gone through the record of this petition minutely and after hearing Shri Das, I have reached the conclusion that this petition must be dismissed. ( 7 ) THE present petition has been filed challenging the remand order only. It is settled law that under the extra-ordinary prerogative powers where the orders made by the statutory authority does not appear to be erroneous in law or on issue concerning jurisdictional facts or the conclusion is based on evidence, then in such circumstances, no interference is called for with the order made by the statutory authority, i. e. , in the instant case, the Board of revenue. Applying this yard-stick, if the order impugned (Annexure-HH)if locked into, I do not see any ground to interfere with the order, as while passing the order, the Board of Revenue neither committed any error or jurisdiction nor does it appaar that it has taken any erroneous view of the law or any issue concerning to jurisdictional fact is involved in the case. Therefore, in my opinion, in such order no interference is called for. ( 8 ) THE Board of Revenue has only remanded the case back with certain directions and the directions as have been given, are quite within its competence. ( 9 ) A writ of certiorari could be issued to quash the proceedings of a subordinate tribunal or authority where it appears that the tribunal or authority has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. But here under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, jurisdiction has already been conferred by statute upon the Board to decide cases in accordance with the law and the Board of Revenue has taken decision and has passed the order of remand. ( 10 ) FROM the discussion aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Board of Revenue, i. e. , Annexure-HH dated 17-12-1981. ( 11 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. The security amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .