R. K. VARMA, O. G. SOHANI, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission. ( 2 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india. ( 3 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : the petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the M. P. Cooperative societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Respondent no. 1 was employed by the petitioner as a Supervisor. The services of respondent No. 1 were terminated by the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry alleged to have been made against respondent No. 1 in respect of certain charges levelled against him. Aggrieved by the order of termination, respondent No. 1 raised a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act before the Deputy Registrar, khargone. The Deputy Registrar, after appreciating the material on record, held that no proper enquiry was held against respondent No. 1. The Deputy registrar further held that it was also not proved that respondent No. 1 was guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. In this view of the matter, the deputy Registrar passed an order directing reinstatement of rcspondent No. 1. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint registrar, which was allowed. On further appeal before the Board of Revenue, the Board allowed the appeal and after setting aside the order passed by the joint Registrar, restored the order passed by the Deputy Registrar directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. The main coatention advanced on behalf of the petitioner Was that the Board of Revenue failed to appreciate that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was liable to be sot aside as the Deputy Registrar had not decided the dispute raised before him by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. ft was urged that the Deputy registrar could noe have framed issues and called upon the parties to produce evidence. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sevaram Totaram pargir v. Board of Revenue, M. P. Gwalior and another, [ 1983 MPLJ 645 ], That decision, however, is distinguishable on facts. ft was urged that the Deputy registrar could noe have framed issues and called upon the parties to produce evidence. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Sevaram Totaram pargir v. Board of Revenue, M. P. Gwalior and another, [ 1983 MPLJ 645 ], That decision, however, is distinguishable on facts. In that case, the question for consideration was whether the authority hearing a dispute under Section 55 (2)of the Act, had jurisdiction to direct reinstatement of the employee if it came to the conclusion that the action of the Co-operative Society in dismissing or removing its employee was in breach of the statutory rules. It was in that connection that it was observed that the jurisdiction vesting in the Registrar or the competent authority under Section 55 of the Act was akin to powers of an appellate, authority bearing appeal against the original action and, therefore embraced power to issue all such orders and directions, which the Society itself could pass or issue, These observations in that decision cannot be construed to mean that the authority hearing a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act cannot frame issues and direct parties to adduce evidence in respect of the dispute raised before it. The Board of Revenue had jurisdiction to decide the question as to whether the order passed by the Deputy Registrar directing reinstatement of respondent No. 1 was or was not justified in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that the order passed by the Board of Revenue was vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. No case has, therefore, been made out for exercising the extraordinary powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. ( 5 ) THE petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed. .