Judgment :- S.S. SUBRAMANI, J. ( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of respondent in proceedings No. 4002/97 dated 17. 7. 1997, quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this court may deem fit and proper. ( 2 ) IN the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is said that the petitioner is the President of the Society. The Board of Directors of the Society was constituted through election to al co-operative societies which took place in October, 1996. After the Board of Management of the Society took over the affairs of the Society, it directed the Secretary of the Society to sit in the office and attend to the day-to-day affairs in view of the increased volume of transactions, and the Senior Clerk and the Cashier were to continue to attend the review meetings. However, the Secretary refused to accept the resolution by refusing to sign in the order in spite of the fact that he had received the order and he continued to attend the review meetings. When the President of the Bank advised the Secretary to attend to the office work regularly to meet the public needs, the Secretary, with the object of maligning the Board of management and with the connivance of the Daily Deposit Collection Clerk, involved himself in misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/ -. When the same was found out, the Secretary and clerk Selvaraj were suspended and disciplinary action was taken against them Selvaraj accepted the misconduct committed by him in the domestic enquiry and the amount was also recovered from him with interest. So far as the secretary was concerned, the charges levelled against him were proved, before proceeding further, a notice was issued on 16. 6. 1997, to show-cause why the board should not be superseded. ( 3 ) A detailed explanation was given. But not being satisfied with the explanation, an order was passed by the respondent superseding the board. It is, challenging the legality of that order, the writ petition has been filed raising various grounds referred to in the affidavit. 6. 1997, to show-cause why the board should not be superseded. ( 3 ) A detailed explanation was given. But not being satisfied with the explanation, an order was passed by the respondent superseding the board. It is, challenging the legality of that order, the writ petition has been filed raising various grounds referred to in the affidavit. Various explanations are also given in the writ petition why they had to remove the secretary, and the answers to the show-cause notice have been more or less extracted as various grounds in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE writ petition was filed on 24. 7. 1997. On 28. 4,1997, when the writ petition came for admission, N. V. Balasubramaniam, J. has granted interim stay. After receipt of notice, respondent has filed an affidavit along with a w. M. P. to vacate the stay. It is more or less an answer to the various averments raised in the writ petition. ( 5 ) I am not going into the merits of the case, since. I feel that the writ petition at this stage is misconceived. The order of the respondent in one passed under Section 88 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. An appeal is provided under Section 152 (2) of the said Act. Since the order is passed by the Registrar, an appeal lies to the Government. Against the order in appeal, a further revision also lies to the Authorities notified under the Art. So, there is effective alternative remedy provided. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the order has been passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the said power could be exercised under that Act only by the registrar. The argument is. since the impugned order is passed by a person without authority, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. ( 7 ) THE said argument also cannot be accepted in view of G. O. Ms. No. 269, Cooperation Department, dated 8. 6. 1988. A copy of the G. O. was produced before me by the learned Additional Government Pleader wherein certain powers of the registrar have been delegated to Joint Registrar of co-operative Societies. By virtue of the said G. O. . No. 269, Cooperation Department, dated 8. 6. 1988. A copy of the G. O. was produced before me by the learned Additional Government Pleader wherein certain powers of the registrar have been delegated to Joint Registrar of co-operative Societies. By virtue of the said G. O. . in respect of any Society, all the powers of the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act, except those referred to in Sections 14. 33 (4), 75, 115, 153 and 181 could be exercised by the Joint Registrar. Since I find that the Joint Registrar is also competent to pass the impugned order, a Statutory Appeal lies to the Government. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel further submitted that the power of supersession should be exercised only in extreme cases, and if it is prima facie found that the order cannot stand, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be exercised. The said argument also cannot be accepted even though in para 8 of the affidavit, petitioner has averred that there is no other efficacious remedy, and therefore, he is moving this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 9 ) IN a recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1997) 5 SCC 536 , Mofatlala Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, their lordships considered the maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution when an alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal is provided. There, the question was, whether for getting refund, writ petition or suit is maintainable. In that case, their lordships in the majority Judgment held in paragraph 108, as follows :"where a refund of the duty is claimed on the ground that it has been collected from the petitioner/plaintiff -whether before the commencement of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment)act, 1991 or thereafter - by misinterpreting or misapplying the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Central Excise Tariff act, 1985 of Customs Act. 1962 read with Customs Tariff Act or by misinterpreting or misapplying any of the rules, regulations or notifications issued under the said enactments, such a claim has necessarily to be preferred under and in accordance with the provisions of the respective enactments before the authorities specified thereunder and within the period of limitation prescribed therein. No Suit in maintainable in that behalf. No Suit in maintainable in that behalf. While the jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 226 and of this Court under Article 32 cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of the said enactments, they wilt certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the said Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition will be considered and disposed of in the tight of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-B. This is for the reason that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised of effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it. "the said enactments including Section 11-B of the Central Excises and salt Act and Section 27 of the Customs Ac do constitute "law" within the meaning of Article 265 of the Constitution of India and hence, any tax collected, retained or not refunded in accordance with the said provisions must be held to be collected, retained or not refunded, as the case may be, under the authority of law. Both the enactments are self-contained enactments providing for levy, assessment, recovery and refund of duties imposed thereunder. Section 11-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Section 27 of the Customs Act, both before and after the 1991 (Amendment) Act "are constitutionally valid and have to be followed and given effect to. Section 72 of the Contract Act has no application to such a claim of refund and cannot form a basis for maintaining a suit or a writ petition. All refund claims except those mentioned under Preposition (ii) below have to be and must be filed and adjudicated under the provisions of the Central Excise and Salt Act or the customs Act, as the case may be, It is necessary to emphasise in this behalf that Act provides a complete mechanism for correcting any errors whether of fact or law and that not only an appeal is provided to a Tribunal which is not a departmental organ -but to this Court, which is a Civil Court. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) IN (1996) 3 SCC 300 , Durga Prasad v. Naveen Chandra, a similar view was taken. In that case the only other remedy that was available was a revision under Section 115, CPC. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 10 ) IN (1996) 3 SCC 300 , Durga Prasad v. Naveen Chandra, a similar view was taken. In that case the only other remedy that was available was a revision under Section 115, CPC. Their lordships held that since a statutory revision is maintainable, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained. ( 11 ) IN (1996) 6 SCC 119 , Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma, also a similar view was taken. There, an election to the panchayat was in dispute. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh refused to entertain the writ petition, since there is an effective alternative remedy. But. by the time the proceedings in the High Court came to an end, time for filing the Election petition was also over. Therefore, the High Court held that the limitation should not be taken into consideration, and the parties were directed to move the appropriate Tribunal. The validity of that order came for consideration before the Supreme Court. Their lordships upheld the finding of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and held filed that when there was an effective alternative remedy, the direction given by the High Court to move the Appellate Authority was only legal; and their lordships also did not find anything wrong regarding the direction as to limitation. ( 12 ) IN view of this settled legal position, it is only proper on the part of the petitioner to move the appropriate Authority, and then move this Court, if necessary. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner relied on the decision reported in AIR 1982 Ker 12 , Jose Kuttiyani v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies. If I am to consider the same on merits of the case. I can only say that it is against the learned Counsel for petitioner. But I do not want to elaborate it, for. that will prejudice his client ultimately. ( 14 ) I dismiss the writ petition, but at the same time, directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy provided under the Co-operative Societies act. If any appeal is filed within a month from today, the question of limitation will not be considered by the authority, and the appeal will be decided on merits alone. No costs. Consequently, the W. M. Ps. are also dismissed. Petition dismissed.