HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE 3rd respondent is a co-operative society. The 2nd respondent on the basis of the report submitted by some of his subordinates he found that a prima facie case has been made out to take action against society under Section 30 (1) of the Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959. Accordingly framed as many as 12 charges and issued show cause notice to the society and to all the members of the managing committee on 26-9-1989. On 2/3-11-1989 pursuant to the said show cause notice the members of the managing committee submitted a detailed explanation denying each and every charge levelled against them. They contended in their explanation that there is nothing to indicate that in any way the members of the managing committee have committed any default or negligence so as to invoke the Provisions of Section 30 (1) of the Karnataka co-operstive societies Act, 1959 and thus they sought for withdrawing the show cause notice. The deputy registrar of co-operative societies, after receipt of the explanation went through each and every explanation and came to the conclusion that out of 12 charges he held 11 charges as proved and after satisfying that in the interest of the institution it is better to keep away the members of the managing committee in performing the duties of the institution by way of superseding the committee of management and to appoint the second respondent as an administrator in place of the committee and accordingly he passed an order in No. Drb. Ssm. 28/88-89 dated 15-12-1989 vide Annexure-B under Section 30 (1) of the act superseding the managing committee and appointing an administrator. ( 2 ) THE main grounds of attack in thiswrit petition are that (1) that the deputy registrar of co-operative societies, was not right in coming to the conclusion that the Provisions of Section 30 (1) of the act be applied to the society in question; (2) that the deputy registrar of co-operative societies has not given an opportunity of hearing pursuant to the explanation; (3) that the deputy registrar or cooperative societies has passed the order impugned without applying his mind to the explanation submitted to each and every charges. ( 3 ) SRI. Kantharaj, learned high courtgovernment pleader submitted that as per the Provisions of Section 30 (1) of the Act, an appeal lies to the next higher authority. ( 3 ) SRI. Kantharaj, learned high courtgovernment pleader submitted that as per the Provisions of Section 30 (1) of the Act, an appeal lies to the next higher authority. Whereas, in the instant case, the petitioners without availing the alternative remedy provided to them under the act have approached this court as such writ petition has to be dismissed. He further contended that under article 226 of the constitution, it is not open for this court to appreciate the findings which infact were already considered by the deputy registrar of co-operative societies and thus he prayed the writ petition be dismissed. ( 4 ) 1 answer the first contentionraised by the petitioners, according to me there is no substance. Moreover in this proceedings this court cannot appreciate the findings given by the deputy registrar of co-operative societies. So far as the opportunity of hearing is concerned, all that is required under Section 30 (1) of the Act, is the authority who wants to take action has to serve the show cause notice and to proceed to pass orders, after considering the objections if any filed by the persons concerned, which infact has been rightly complied by the deputy registrar of co-operative societies. Hence, the question of affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners does not arise. The petitioners relied upon a decision rendered by this court in the case of channaveerappalu dodda hallappa @ channavecregowda v land valuation officer-cum sale officer (i. l. r. 1990 kar. 1660), wherein it is hald as follows :"from the contents of Rule 41 of the rules, it is clear that there is no option left to the sale officer to refuse to investigate into the claim or objection relating to the properties attached and brought for sale. The sale officer may refuse to investigate the claim only if he considers that the claim or objection is frivolous or made on or, after the date fixed for sale. . . . In the event, the sale officer either rejects the objections or upholds them, the aggrieved party has a right of suit as provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 41 of the rules. . . . In the event, the sale officer either rejects the objections or upholds them, the aggrieved party has a right of suit as provided under sub-rule (3) of Rule 41 of the rules. That being the position, it is not at all just and proper for this court in a proceeding under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution to investigate into the claim for which the rules provide a specific remedy with a specific procedure and a specific authority is invested with the jurisdiction. " ( 5 ) BUT the above decision does nothelp the petitioners. Infact it supports the contention of the respondents. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, as statedabove, the deputy registrar of co- operative societies, Bangalore district, Bangalore, has considered the explanation offered on each and every charge and held that (1) the petitioners have acted in a negligent manner (2) not obeyed the orders of the government acted contrary to the Provisions of the Act, ruies and regulations. He felt that the continuance of the petitioners as members will be prejudicial to the interest of the society. Hence, in my view the said ruling has no application to the facts of this case. ( 7 ) WHEREAS, learned high courtgovernment pleader took me to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of joint registrar of co-operative societies, Madras and others v ps. Rajagopal naidu, govindarajalu and others (a. i r. 1970 supreme court 992), wherein their lordships while considering the scope of article 226 of the Constitution held as under :"the high court could not act as an appellate court and reappraise and re examine the relevant facts and circumstances which led to the making of the orders of supersession as if the matter before it had been brought by way of appeal. The limits of the jurisdiction of the high court under article 226 when a writ in the nature of certiorari is to be issued are well known and well settled by now and it is pointless to restate the grounds on which any such writ or direction can be issued. We are satisfied that there was no justification whatsoever for quashing the orders of the joint registrar and that of the registrar in appeal. The appeals are consequently allowed with costs and the judgment of the high court is set aside. We are satisfied that there was no justification whatsoever for quashing the orders of the joint registrar and that of the registrar in appeal. The appeals are consequently allowed with costs and the judgment of the high court is set aside. The writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed. " ( 8 ) IN view of the above legal position,the proper course for the petitioners will be to approach the appellate authority under Section 106 of the act and ail the points including irregularity and illegality if any committed by the deputy registrar of co-operative societies including non-appiication of his mind in respect of the explanation offered to them be raised before such an authority. Inview of the above discussion, i do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, if the petitioners preferan appeal before the joint registrar of co-operative societies, wisthin two weeks from this day, the joint registrar shall entertain such an appeal and also consider the petitioners' request for stay. The observations made above, shall not influence in any way the joint registrar of co-operative societies in deciding the appeal on merits. The joint registrar of co-operative societies, is at liberty to take his own view on the contentions of the petitioners and also the respondents. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .