JUDGMENT 1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Ganga Sahai Trivedi for quashing the declaration and the termination made by the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur, by his order dated April 3, 1991 passed under section 34(8) of the Rajasthan Co- operative Societies Act, 1965 whereby it was held by the Joint Registrar that the petitioner had ceased to continue as Member and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Sawai Madhopur Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., on account of dis-qualification incurred by him under section 34(4) of the said Act and also for quashing of the consequential proceedings which are being taken under section 6and are proposed to be taken under section 74 of the Act. 2. Election to the Board of Directors of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Sawai Madhopur was held in the month of Sept., 1988 and the petitioner was elected as Chairman of this Co-operative Bank. It appears that Shri Kamal Das Sharma, Advocate had made a complaint to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, alleging therein that an amount of 10,266.16 on account of loan and Rs. 1,200/- in respect of cost of empty gunny bags, in all Rs. 11,466.16/-, was due as against the petitioner since the year 1988 in favour of Gangapur Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. and since the petitioner had not paid this amount to the Gangapur Co-operative Society even after the expiry of a period of more than 3 months, the petitioner had become disqualified to continue on the office held by him in the Board of Directors in Sawai Madhopur Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Sawai Madhopur and also from the office of Chair- man Sawai Madhopur Central co-operative Bank Ltd. A notice was served upon the petitioner on July 12, 1990 (Ann.2) by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur (Respondent No.1) requiring him to ex- plain his position on the matter in writing on July 29, 1990. The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on July 30, 1990 (Ann.3). The petitioner submitted a reply to this notice on July 30, 1990 (Ann.3). The Joint Registrar, after going through the record of Gangapur Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. and hearing the petitioner, held that the above amount of loan and cost of empty gunny bags were due against the petitioner in favour of the Marketing Society which the petitioner had failed to repay even after the expiry of the time limit for the payment of these dues and consequently, the petitioner had incurred dis-qualification to hold membership and office of Chairman of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and he automatically ceased to be member and Chairman of the said Bank. The Joint Registrar made a declaration to that effect in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 34(8) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, hereinafter, the Act"), by his order dated April 3, 1991 (Ann. 7), the validity of which has been challenged in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner has made averments that he was a Congress worker. There was change in political power after the general elections held in the year 1989 and the assembly election held in 1990. After that the Board of Directors of various Co-operative Societies were displaced by removal. Those actions were challenged in this Court by writ petitions. The orders of removal were set aside. The State Government then came with an Ordinance for amending section 36 of the Act. The validity of the Ordinance was also challenged before this Court, and the same was declared illegal. Special leave to appeal petition against that is said to be pending in the Supreme Court. The term of Board of Directors of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. had not yet expired. Attempts started to dislodge the petitioner also by hook and crook. The petitioner filed two writ petitions in this Court. In this background, the aforesaid proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the impugned order was passed. 4. It is alleged that the impugned order has been passed under pressure from political parties and with a pre-judged and biased attitude. Copy of the complaint made by Shri Kamal Das Sharma was not supplied to the petitioner. Even from the record of the Marketing Co-operative Society, it was not established that the petitioner had taken any loan from the said Society. Copy of the complaint made by Shri Kamal Das Sharma was not supplied to the petitioner. Even from the record of the Marketing Co-operative Society, it was not established that the petitioner had taken any loan from the said Society. The Joint Registrar was clearly wrong in holding that there had been no commercial transaction between the petitioner and the Marketing Co-operative Society after the year 1986-87. This finding is contrary to the transactions evidenced by vouchers Annexures-8 and 9. If there was a mistake committed by the Marketing Society in the up-keep and maintenance of its accounts, that did not entail any disqualification qua the petitioner. 5. The petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents. As regards the allegations made by the petitioner pertaining to various actions after the change of political power in the State, it is stated by the respondents that administrators were appointed over various Co-operative Societies since the term of the Board of Directors had expired. Special leave petition' was filed by the State Government against the dismissal of D.B. Civil Appeal No. 159/90 and the same was admitted and the operation of the judgment of the Division Bench dated November 29, 1990 has been stayed. There was no interference by the respondents in the ad- ministration of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is pleaded that bye-laws of the Sahkari Samiti provided loaning to the members on the basis of pledge of their agricultural produce with the Society. The petitioner had over-drawn by way of loan in his account 11, 466.16 on 18th Aug., 1988. He did not repay the said amount to the Society despite demands. The loan was overdue for more than a period of three months and as such the petitioner became dis- qualified under section 34(4) of the Act and the rules made thereunder. For advancement of loan, it is pleaded that it was not necessary in all cases that the loan should execute a bond in favour of the Society. The Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies has passed the impugned order having considered various aspects of the matter and his order is perfectly legal. The respondents have also taken an objection that there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioner of appeal under section 124 of the Act against the order passed by the Joint Registrar under section 34(8) of the Act. The respondents have also taken an objection that there was an alternative remedy available to the petitioner of appeal under section 124 of the Act against the order passed by the Joint Registrar under section 34(8) of the Act. The petitioner could have also filed a revision petition under section 128 of the Act. The petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedy provided under the Act itself and as such he cannot invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner did not file any appeal against the impugned order, it has become final and cannot be challenged. Gangapur Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. has also filed a separate reply to the writ petition. It has stated that the petitioner was selling his agricultural produce through the Marketing Society. The produce sent by the petitioner was kept in go-downs. As and when the market rates were favourable to the petitioner, he used to give oral directions to the Society to sell the produce or part thereof and as per his instructions, the credit of sale proceeds were made in the account books of the petitioner. The petitioner used to draw money from the Society shown in his credit in its accounts. On Sept. 25, 1986, there was credit balance of 3,723 in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner had withdrawn this amount on the same day. A credit entry was made on Sept. 25, 1986 for 15,253.60. No basis for this credit entry was shown in the ledger on that day. The basis for this credit entry was journal entry at page 38 of Nakal Bahi. Later-on, on the basis of Nakal Bahi entry, the account of the petitioner was credited once again with 15, 253.60. The second ledger posting by giving credit of 15, 253.60 resulted in giving credit of this amount twice whereas in fact, the said amount was received by sale of agricultural produce of the petitioner only once. Thus, an excess credit of 15,253.60 was shown in the account of the petitioner on the basis of which, he continued to withdraw money from the Society. 6. I may straight-way come to the impugned order Ann.7. Thus, an excess credit of 15,253.60 was shown in the account of the petitioner on the basis of which, he continued to withdraw money from the Society. 6. I may straight-way come to the impugned order Ann.7. It recites that on receipt of the complaint from Shri Kamal Das Sharma, Advocate, a letter was sent on May 15, 1990 to the Marketing Society to send a factual report about the dues against the petitioner. The Manager of the Society sent the factual report and it was found that an amount of 10,266.16 as cash and an amount of Rs. 1,200/- in respect of cost of empty gunny bags, in all 11,466.16, were outstanding against the petitioner since the year 1988. Consequently, a notice dated June 21, 1990 was issued to the petitioner under section 34(4) of the Act and the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be held to have become disqualified to hold the office of Chairman of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank and from the membership of Sawai Madhopur Co-operative Land Development Bank. The petitioner was required to appear on July 9, 1990 but he dit not present himself. The hearing was adjourned to July 30,1990. On that date, the Manager of the Marketing Society appeared. The petitioner also appeared and filed his reply. In his reply, before the Joint Registrar, the petitioner stated that he used to sell his agricultural produce through the Marketing Society and received amounts from the Society. He denied to have taken any loan from the Society. The matter was adjourned on various dates. On march 12, 1991, the record of the Marketing Society was perused by the Joint Registrar in the presence of the petitioner. It was found that in the account of the year 1986-87 at page 350, an amount of 14,935.61, and in the journal of the year 1987- 88, at page 330, an amount of 10,208.70 and in the year 1988-89, at page 252 of the journal, an amount of 10.266.16 were shown as outstanding against the petitioner. It was further found that on Sept. 25, 1986, there was a credit entry of 15, 253.60 in the account of the petitioner in respect of receipt of sale proceeds of agricultural produce. However, this amount was entered twice. In 1987-88, an amount of Rs. 2731.16/- was entered in respect of interest on deposit. It was further found that on Sept. 25, 1986, there was a credit entry of 15, 253.60 in the account of the petitioner in respect of receipt of sale proceeds of agricultural produce. However, this amount was entered twice. In 1987-88, an amount of Rs. 2731.16/- was entered in respect of interest on deposit. At the end of the year 1988- 89, an amount of 10,266.16 were shown as outstanding. Then it is recited in the impugned order that the petitioner was asked to deposit this amount and was further asked that he had received amount more than the receipts of the sale of his agricultural produce and as to why he did not repay this amount even for more than three years but no satisfactory reply, was forthcoming. It is then mentioned that no transaction took place after the year 1986-87. The next date of hearing was fixed as 3rd Apr., 1991. General Manager of the Marketing Society was present but the petitioner did not appear. The General Manager of the Marketing Society was Shri Damodar Lal Gupta who clarified in his statement that the petitioner used to sell his agricultural produce through the medium of the Gangapur Marketing Co-operative Society. The petitioner used to withdraw the amount of sale produce from the Society at his convenience and also used to take interest on the amount remaining in deposit with the Society. On account of error committed by the employee of Marketing Society, amounts of 15, 253.60 were twice credited in the account of the petitioner and on account of that, an amount of 10,208.60 was outstanding against the petitioner since 14th June, 1988. Apart from that, an amount of Rs. 1,200/- was due against the petitioner in respect of the cost of empty gunny bags. On the basis of above, the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies gave the findings that even if it is assumed that the amount of 15,253.60 was credited twice in the account of the petitioner kept in Marketing Society, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to reconcile his accounts, to get the mistake corrected and to deposit the amount outstanding against him in the Marketing Society. The petitioner was given notice by the Manager of the Marketing Society and he was also allowed inspection of the record of the Society but the petitioner wilfully kept the amount outstanding against him. The petitioner was given notice by the Manager of the Marketing Society and he was also allowed inspection of the record of the Society but the petitioner wilfully kept the amount outstanding against him. It was also mentioned that on the basis of the credit entries in the accounts of the Society, the petitioner also drew interest amount and the interest amount was also recoverable from the petitioner. It was held that the advance on agricultural produce and the loan amount were of the duration of one year so that the agriculturist may discharge the advance amount by the agricultural produce in the later year by selling the same through the medium of the Society. Such advance amount, according to the joint Registrar, after the expiry of one year period, is a loan. The amount was outstanding for a period of more than three months and this incurred a disqualification as against the petitioner to remain a member and Chairman of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the petitioner automatically ceased to hold that office. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 34(8) of the Act the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhratpur declared the petitioner to be disqualified under section 34(4) of the Act to remain as Chairman of Sawai Madhopur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and consequently ordered for his removal as member of the Board of Directors and from the office of Chairman, Sawai Madhopur Central co-operative Bank Ltd. These are the findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the impugned order Ann. 7 and on the basis of these findings, the petitioner was declared to be disqualified and was removed from the membership of the Board of Directors and from the office of Chairman of Sawai Madhopur Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Sawai Madhopur. 7. It cannot be disputed that there are various categories of Co-operative Societies. There are some credit Co-operative Societies and even some Co-operative Banks who advance loans. There are other Co-operative Societies which are Marketing Societies who sell the produce of their members through the Society and charge commission in lieu of making sales. By no stretch, Gangapur Marketing Society Ltd. can be said to be a credit Co-operative Society. It was Marketing Society. There are other Co-operative Societies which are Marketing Societies who sell the produce of their members through the Society and charge commission in lieu of making sales. By no stretch, Gangapur Marketing Society Ltd. can be said to be a credit Co-operative Society. It was Marketing Society. It is even clear from the reply filed by respondent No. 4 Marketing Society that the petitioner used to sell his agricultural produce through the agency of respondent No. 4 as he was a member of the Society. As and when the market trends were favourable, the Marketing Society at the instructions of its members used to sell the agricultural produce and credited the amount of sale proceeds in the accounts of the Marketing Society. The petitioner used to draw money from the Marketing Society from out of the amount of his sale proceeds as credited in his account of the Society. It is not the case of any of the respondents that respondent No. 4 Society advanced any loans to its members. A reference to rule 9 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 will abundantly show the classification and sub-classifications of Co-operative Societies. There is separate category of Marketing Society and another separate category of societies formed as Co-operative Credit Societies. 8. The main question in this writ petition is whether the petitioner had taken any amount as loan from Gangapur Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd. The reply filed by respondent No. 4- Cooperative Society (sic) and not only that but even the findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur unmistakably go to show that the petitioner had not taken any loan what- soever from Gangapur Marketing Society Limited. It is quite clear that the petitioner used to sell his agricultural produce through the agency of the Marketing Society (respondent No.4). This Marketing Society after selling the agricultural produce of the petitioner, entered the receipt of sale proceeds by crediting the amount thereof in the account of the petitioner. A credit entry of 15,253.60 was made in the account of the petitioner in the Marketing Society. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 and it was also assumed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the impugned order that this amount of 15,253.60 was entered twice by the staff of the Society. A credit entry of 15,253.60 was made in the account of the petitioner in the Marketing Society. It is the case of the respondent No. 4 and it was also assumed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in the impugned order that this amount of 15,253.60 was entered twice by the staff of the Society. The amounts were withdrawn by the petitioner- may be taking advantage of his account in the Society being credited twice by the same amount of 15,253.60 by the mistake or otherwise of the employees of the Society. If this double entry was made solely on account of the mistake committed by an employee of the Marketing Society and the petitioner in ignorance of the amounts standing to his credit in the Society, withdrew the total amount of the double entries, the responsibility leading to this over-drawing of the amount is that of the person or employee of the Society who made double entries facilitating the withdrawal by the petitioner. On the other hand, if this double entry of the amount of 15,253.60 was made in the accounts of the Marketing Society by the staff of the Marketing Society in collusion or in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy entered into by the petitioner with the Marketing Society personnel to over-draw the amount, the petitioner was liable for the offence of cheating and could be prosecuted for the offence. Either of the two situations does not make this dismal episode or dismal over-drawing, a transaction of loan. There was no intention whatsoever on the part of the Marketing Society to advance any loan to the petitioner, and the petitioner also did not take any loan. It might be cheating and defrauding the Marketing Society by the petitioner or any of its employee, and the petitioner apart from being liable for criminal act to be prosecuted for a penal offence may also separately be liable for recovery of the amount overdrawn by him, but the transaction or the act cannot by any stretch be labelled as a transaction of loan. 9. It appears that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Bharatpur was not at all interested in criminally prosecuting the petitioner for his act of cheating or for taking steps for the recovery of the amount overdrawn by the petitioner. 9. It appears that the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Bharatpur was not at all interested in criminally prosecuting the petitioner for his act of cheating or for taking steps for the recovery of the amount overdrawn by the petitioner. He was more interested in somehow labelling and holding this transaction - rather a misdeed as a transaction of loan with the sole object of disqualifying the petitioner so that it could be declared that he had ceased to hold the membership of Sawai Madhopur Co-operative Central Bank Limited and also the office of Chairman or President of this Bank. That is nothing short of malice in law on the part of the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bharatpur. These Joint Registrars are expected to be fair and impartial. They can call spade-a-spade. They should, however, never term a criminal offence to be an ordinary civil transaction of loan with the sole ulterior motive of disqualifying a person holding the membership or Chairmanship of a Co-operative Bank or Co-operative Society. In substance, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in this case has tried to change a criminal offence into a civil transaction. This has been done not out of sympathy towards the petitioner, but to subserve extraneous and oblique purposes. 10. Even otherwise assuming as has been assumed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies that the petitioner overdrew the amount standing to his credit on account of the fact that the transaction relating to the receipt of the sale proceeds of agricultural produce sold by the petitioner through the medium of the Marketing Society was entered twice (i.e. the amount of 15,253.60 was credited twice in the account of the petitioner), that could also not make the transaction as loan. Loan transaction is a conscious transaction between a creditor and the debtor. The Marketing Society neither intended nor advanced any amount as loan to the petitioner. The petitioner unilaterally could not make the transaction of loan in his favour by overdrawing the amount. Reference may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Veerpal Singh v. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies Meerut, ( AIR 1973 SC 1052 ) . His Lordship Ray, J. at page 1055 in para 19 of the reported judgment had observed : "The Federation is not a credit society. The Federation does not have any loan transactions with the Co-operative Unions. His Lordship Ray, J. at page 1055 in para 19 of the reported judgment had observed : "The Federation is not a credit society. The Federation does not have any loan transactions with the Co-operative Unions. The Cooperative Unions did not have any loan transactions with the petitioner. The dues of the Cooperative Unions are in respect of supplies of goods by the Federation to the Cooperative Unions. These are commercial transactions. These are commercial debts. Price of goods supplied, if outstanding, does not constitute a loan within the meaning of the bye-law. The impugned order proceeded entirely on an illegal basis and wrong interpretation of the bye-law. The order is bad." 11. If the dues of Cooperative Unions in respect of supply of goods could not constitute a loan, how could an amount drawn or even over-drawn by the petitioner from the amount standing to his credit in the accounts of the society of the proceeds of the petitioners' own agricultural produce sold through the medium of the Cooperative Society, can by any stretch be termed as a loan. It is nothing short than a commercial transaction. The instant case stands even on a higher pedestal than was the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Veerpal Singh v. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Meerut (supra). 12. Mr. M.D. Agarwal appearing for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 vehemently argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under section 124 of the Act and even a revision and, therefore, this Court should not exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He urged that the period of appeal has expired and the impugned order has become final. In this connection Mr. M.D. Agarwal referred to the decisions in M/s Praja Sahakari Udyog, Bharatpur Ltd. v. Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies ; Sepoi Devidutt v. Union of India, 1988(1) RLR 255 , Rajasthan Pul Nigam Workers Union and others v. Rajasthan State Bridge and Construction Corporation and another, 1989(1) RLR 860 . It may be stated that the question whether the alleged transaction was a loan or not is not being investigated by this Court as a disputed question of fact. The facts of the transaction are clearly mentioned by the Marketing Society-respondent No. 4 in its reply. It may be stated that the question whether the alleged transaction was a loan or not is not being investigated by this Court as a disputed question of fact. The facts of the transaction are clearly mentioned by the Marketing Society-respondent No. 4 in its reply. The findings of fact arrived at by the Joining Registrar, Cooperative Societies, in his order Annexure-7 have been assumed to be wholly correct. Thus disputed questions of fact are not at all involved in the present case. All that has to be seen is whether on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur in his order Ann.7, did the alleged transaction amounted to a loan transaction? This Court is not questioning the finding of fact arrived at by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies in this proceedings. with respect to 'certiorari', S.R. Day, C.J. observed in State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 , that 'it must be borne in ( mind that there is no rule, with regard to certiorari as there is with mandamus, that it will lie only where there is no other equally effective remedy .................... but this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies'. It should be remembered that the rule of exhaustion before the writ is granted is a rule of self imposed limitations, a rule of policy and discretion rather than a rule of law and the Court may, therefore, in exceptional cases issue a writ, such as a writ of certiorari notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted [see Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar, AIR 1969 SC 556 , - per Ramaswami, J. There would be grave miscarriage of justice if by such a dubious method, the joint Registrars of Cooperative Societies remove the Chairmen or Presidents of Cooperative Banks or Cooperative Societies. The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug has to be ad- ministered to prevent miscarriage of justice. The circumstances of this case need for a timely judicial interdict or mandate. The mentor of law is justice and a potent drug has to be ad- ministered to prevent miscarriage of justice. The circumstances of this case need for a timely judicial interdict or mandate. Tejraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3052/1988 , decided by this Court on 26th Oct., 1988, was also of a similar nature. In that petition also, arguments had been advanced on behalf of the respondents regarding alternative remedy being available to the petitioner of filing revision under section 128 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The Division Bench dealing with the plea observed as under: "So far as alternative remedy of revision is concerned, it is settled law that provision of alternative remedy is no bar to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, if the Court deems it proper to interfere". 13. In Tejraj Singh's case (supra), also the question was,' whether the transaction in that case amounted to a loan transaction. The Division Bench held on the basis of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Veerpal Singh v. Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Meerut (supra) that the transaction was not a loan transaction. 14. This sufficiently answers the question of alternative remedy being available, raised on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 6. 15. As a result of the above discussion, I allow this writ petition and quash the order dated April 3,1991, passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur under section 34(8) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (Ann.7) by a writ of certiorari and prohibit the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner in pursuance of Annexure-7. The petitioner will get costs from respondent No. 1 which I assess at Rs. 500/-.Petition allowed with costs. *******