Judgment N.K.Sodhi, J. 1. Petitioner is a co-operative Society registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the Act) which is presently under liquidation. Another cooperative society under the name and style of the Nurmahal Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Limited is functioning at Nurmahal, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar (for short the Nurmahal Society) and it had a fertilizer depot at Thamanwal from where it was supplying fertilizer to the. petitioner-Society. One Sadhu Singh was the salesman of the petitioner-Society and Avtar Singh was its member. Fertilizer was supplied to the petitioner through Avtar Singh and Sadhu Singh against proper receipts. The State government closed all the fertilizer depots in the year 1973 and at the time of the closure some stocks of fertilizer were lying with the petitioner which it did not return and, therefore the price of the unreturned stocks were debited to the account of the petitioner-Society. A sum of Rs. 1,01,287.31 became recoverable by the Nurmahal Society. Since the amount was not paid the said Society raised a dispute under Sections 55/56 of the Act and the same was referred to the Deputy Registrar. Co-operative Societies as an arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award on 21.11.1983 and held that the amount was recoverable from the petitioner. It may be mentioned that the petitioner-Society had also raised a dispute against Sadhu Singh and Avtar Singh for the recovery of the same amount on the plea that they had not accounted for the unreturned stocks of the fertilizer and were liable to pay the amount to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the award. the petitioner and Sadhu Singh both filed appeals before the Registrar. Co-operative Societies for setting aside the same. The Joint Registrar who heard the appeals remanded the case to the arbitrator for fresh decision on the ground that the relevant record had not been properly examined by the arbitrator. The Deputy Registrar again after hearing the parties and going through the record found that the claim against the petitioner was valid and that it was liable to pay the amount for the unreturned stocks of fertilizer. The petitioner again filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar which was allowed on 27.8.1993. The Deputy Registrar again after hearing the parties and going through the record found that the claim against the petitioner was valid and that it was liable to pay the amount for the unreturned stocks of fertilizer. The petitioner again filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar which was allowed on 27.8.1993. The Joint Registrar observed that the Nurmahal Society was not in possession of any bills containing the signatures of the salesman or any other officer of the petitioner-society except the ledger book and, therefore, there was no evidence that the disputed stocks had ever been given to the petitioner-Society. The Nurmahal Society then filed a revision petition before the State Government under Section 69 of the Act challenging the order of the Joint Registrar. The Additional Secretary, Co-operation, Punjab exercising the powers of the State government heard the parties through their counsel and examined the entire record. He found that the fertilizer had been supplied to the petitioner and that the relevant documents contained the signatures of Sadhu Singh and Avtar Singh who were then dealing on behalf of the petitioner. He also noticed the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner. On the one hand, the petitioner denied the receipt of the fertilizer and on the other it took the stand that the fertilizer had been returned. The receipt dated 16.10.1973 which was produced by the petitioner was found to be forged document on which the State government did not place any reliance. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed and the appellate order passed by the Joint Registrar set aside. The award of the arbitrator was restored and the petitioner was held liable to pay the amount claimed by the Nurmahal Society. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. The Additional Secretary examined the whole matter in detail and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount in regard to the unreturned stocks of fertilizer which were lying with it at the time of the closure of the depot. The findings are based on the material which was before the State government and we are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with those findings. The findings are based on the material which was before the State government and we are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with those findings. It is well settled that this Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below. No error of law has been pointed out nor any other material irregularity which could warrant our interference. 3. There is, thus, no merits in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed.