JUDGMENT 1. - In the writ petition the petitioner challenged order Annx. 4 dated 20-10-1993 whereby the proceedings were remanded, Annx. 5 notice dated 14-2-1996 issued in pursuance of the orders made after remand, Annx. 8 dated 22-5-1996 whereby proceedings were ordered to be initiated and notice Annx. 9 dated 2-7-1996 whereby charges have been ordered to be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was a Treasurer serving with Bagod Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Bagod (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti). Case of the petitioner-appellant is that while he was in service of the Samiti as Treasurer an enquiry was held regarding affairs of the Society. This inquiry which was held by Shri Bhopal Singh was set. aside by Annx. 1 and the matter was remanded back. After the remand, the matter was inquired again and by report dated 30th September, 1981 afresh report was submitted. This report the petitioner has relied upon Order Ex. 3 was given against the office bearers of the Society and by this the petitioner wants to say that he was not even a party to those proceedings dealt with under Ex. 3 and therefore, he cannot be made subject matter of any irregularity which was considered by Ex. 3. Ex. 3 was challenged by the officials of the Society and by Ex. 4 the matter was remanded back for enquiry. After this remand the matter was further examined and notice Ex. 5 was issued. The petitioner is aggrieved by this notice and the further proceedings which were taken in pursuance to this notice. 2. A reply to notice Ex. 5 was submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the notice and alongwith the reply he filed Ex. 7, an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nagpur dated 17-7-1984 whereby against a demand of Rs. 64363.66 his liability was fixed at Rs. 11756.80. The case of the petitioner-appellant is that since his liability was already fixed qua dues of the Society, the same could not be initiated again as the same is barred under principles of double jeopardy. Ex. 8 is the document which was prepared after the consideration of the submission of the petitioner and in that order, this has been clearly mentioned that the order dated 17-7-1984 will stand. Ex. 8 is the document which was prepared after the consideration of the submission of the petitioner and in that order, this has been clearly mentioned that the order dated 17-7-1984 will stand. Therefore, as tar as the petitioners contention regarding effect of order dated 17-7-1984 is concerned, that was taken note of by the respondent authorities. However, by this order Ex. 8 the authorities said that a sum of Rs. 189820.42 was the amount which has to be accounted for and therefore, the officials of the Society alongwith the petitioner are the persons who are to answer in terms of charges, which are to be framed and the inquiry which is to be held under Sec. 74 of the Act. 3. The respondents have replied to the petition and stated that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke extra ordinary constitutional writ jurisdiction of this Court as he has right to file an appeal against an order under Sec. 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The respondents have further submitted that it is only an interlocutory order of framing of charges. The petitioner can still go ahead with the trial of the inquiry and at the inquiry he can submit his reply and contest the charges, which are to be framed. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The basic contention of the petitioner that he has already been saddled with liability by Annx. 7 has been taken note of by the respondents in Annx. 8 and that order has been accepted to be final. It seems that the appellant-petitioner has mis-conceived the probe against him. It is not this amount which in question under the charges which are contemplated to be framed. It is a different amount which is in question. It is for the reason that this amount has been held to be outstanding against the authorities of the Samiti and this is the finding on record that if was the Treasurer who acted through higher functionaries of the Samiti, leading to issue of notice Annx. 9 for framing of charges. If the appellant-petitioner has any defence by virtue of which he can get himself exonerated, then he is to pursue his remedy before the authorities of the Co-operative Department and take recourse to the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. 9 for framing of charges. If the appellant-petitioner has any defence by virtue of which he can get himself exonerated, then he is to pursue his remedy before the authorities of the Co-operative Department and take recourse to the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. As regard proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are concerned, the appellant-petitioner is not entitled to invoke extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to get the disputed questions of fact agitated before this Court. More so, in the circumstances when reliance has been placed regarding a particular sun and his objections in that regard have already been taken note of by the authorities of the Co-operative Department by Annx. 8. There is no force in this appeal and same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******