( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows : the petitioner is the Chairman of the Jila Sahakari Thok Upbhokta bhandar, Dewas, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Society'), a Co-operative society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). On account of certain defaults alleged to have been committed by the Committee of the Society, a notice was issued under section 53 (1) of the Act by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to the Committee of the Society to show cause why it should not be superseded. Aggrieved by that notice, the petitioner as the Chairman of the Committee, and the Society filed a petition before this Court, which was registered as misc. Petition No. 84 of 1987. It was urged in that petition that the show cause no ice was mala fide and that the same be quashed. By an order dated 11-3-1987, that petition was dismissed with the following observations ;"the Assistant Registrar has jurisdiction under Section 53 of the Act to issue the impugned notice. The Committee of the Petitioner society has been given opportunity to show cause and if proper cause is shown, the Assistant Registrar will undoubtedly take that into consideration before passing any final order. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . If ultimately any order of supersession is passed, the petitioners have a remedy of filing an appeal. " ( 3 ) AFTER the aforesaid order was passed, no reply was submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice. The Assistant Registrar thereafter passed the order of supersession on 25-8-1987, superseding the Committee of the society under Section 53 (1) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner instead of preferring an appeal from that order, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. It was not disputed before us that an appeal from the impugned order is provided under the Act. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. It was not disputed before us that an appeal from the impugned order is provided under the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that as the impugned order of supersession was contrary to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner was not given inspection of relevant record to enable him to file reply to the show cause notice, a petition under article 226/227 the Constitution was competent. Now as regards the grievance of the petitioner that he was not allowed to inspect the record, it was averred on behalf of the respondents in reply to the notice to show cause why the petition be not admitted, that respondent No. 2, the Deputy Registrar had directed the officer concerned to show the relevant record to the petitioner; that the said officer had accordingly intimated to the petitioner that he could inspect the record at any time during office hours but the petitioner did not choose to inspect the record. It was further averred that a part of the record, of which inspection was sought by the petitioner, i. e. , proceedings book, agenda register and attendance register of the meetings, were in the possession of the petitioner himself and that the petitioner was not really interested in inspecting the record of the Society but was more interested in trying to make out a case that as he was not allowed to inspect the record, he was unable to furnish any reply to the show cause notice. On behalf of the petitioner and the respondents, affidavits have been filed to substantiate their contentions. ( 5 ) THE question as to whether the petitioner was or was not allowed to inspect the relevant record is, in the instant case, a disputed question of fact. We refrain from expressing any opinion in this behalf because that question can be raised before the appellate authority and if the appellate authority finds after appreciating the material placed before the appellate authority, that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause, the impugned order can be set aside and the matter can be remanded for giving proper opportunity. Facts will have to be investigated to ascertain the truth of the allegation made by the petitioner that relevant record was not made available to the petitioner to enable him to file reply to the show cause notice. This investigation can appropriately be made by the appellate authority and not by this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, therefore, this is not a fit case for exercising the extraordinary powers of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) THE petition fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed. Petition dismissed. .