JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J. - The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated December 1, 2000 (copy Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2, i.e., Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Panchkula, appointing respondent Nos. 2 to 6 as Administrators of the Mahander Vihar Co-operative Housing Maintenance Society Ltd., Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the Society). 2. The petitioners have averred that they are members of the Society. A meeting of the General Body of the Society was held on July 12, 1998. The petitioners were elected as members of the Managing Committee. Petitioner No. 1, i.e. Brig. Prem Kumar was elected as President and petitioner No. 2, i.e., Col. Tejinder Singh was elected as Vice-President of the Society. On June 4, 2000, a meeting of the members was held to discuss the problems of the society. During the proceedings of this meeting, 2-3 members misbehaved and obstructed the proceedings. They used derogatory language and insulted the President and other members of the Society. In disgust, all the members of the Society submitted their resignations to the Registrar on June 10, 2000. A copy of the resolution vide which the petitioners submitted their resignation is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. Their collective resignation was not accepted by the Registrar and an intimation was sent to them on August 3, 2000 by the Inspector Co-operative Societies, Panchkula. Keeping in view the larger interests of the Society, all the members withdrew their resignations and requested the Registrar to ignore the same. A copy of the letter withdrawing their resignations dated August 7, 2000 addressed to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, who has been arrayed as respondent No. 1, is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-2. 3. It has been further averred that in the meantime, one Lt.Col. Tarlok Singh managed to hold a meeting of the General Boady of the Society and showed himself to be elected as a General Secretary of the Society. On coming to know of this fraud, members of the Managing Committee met the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana (respondent No. 2) on August 10, 2000 and apprised him of the real and factual position. On coming to know of this fraud, members of the Managing Committee met the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana (respondent No. 2) on August 10, 2000 and apprised him of the real and factual position. Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated August 10, 2000 and stated that the petitioners shall continue as members of the Managing Committee till the new Committee was elected. A letter of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Panchkula dated August 10, 2000 is annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-3. 4. It has been further averred that some disgruntled members of the Society held an unofficial meeting on September 17, 2000, without giving notices to the other members or following any procedure and passed a resolution that the resignations of the petitioners had been accepted and new 5 members were shown to have been elected as members of the Managing Committee. The petitioners again met the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, i.e., respondent No. 1 and informed him about the illegality, which had taken place. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana appointed Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Kurukshetra to conduct an enquiry and make a detailed report. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Kurukshetra further directed the Assistant Registrar, Panchkula, i.e, respondent No. 2 not to take any action against the Managing Committee till he completed the enquiry. A letter dated November 7, 2000 in this regard is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-4. 5. It has been further averred that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Panchkula, i.e. respondent No. 2 was in league with the persons who were trying to oust the petitioners, therefore, he evolved a new method and did away the Managing Committee and appointed himself and four others as Administrators of the Society under Section 33(1) of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 33(1) of the Act is reproduced as under :- "33-. Section 33(1) of the Act is reproduced as under :- "33-. Power of Registrar to appoint Administrator in certain cases :- (1) Where in any Cooperative Society, a Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, rules or bye-laws does not exist or has ceased to exist, the Registrar may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Act or Rules or bye-laws, appoint administrators not exceeding five for a period of six months or till a committee is constituted under Section 28 whichever is earlier: Provided that the Managing Director appointed under Section 31, if any, shall be one of the administrators; Provided further that the Registrar shall cause the election to be held within the period of six months or the extended period : Provided further that the Government may further extend the period of one year upto four years but not more than a year at a time, either prospectively or retrospectively. In case the period is extended retrospectively, the actions taken by the administrators after the expiry of previous extension shall be deemed to be valid as if the period has been extended on the date of the expiry of the previous extension." 6. Notice of motion was issued. 7. Reply was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7. Respondents took preliminary objections that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of filing civil revision under Section 115 of the Act, but, for not availing of that remedy, they have straight way approached this Honble Court by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Respondent No. 7, who was an Honorary Secretary of the Society stated that the meeting held on September 17, 2000 was in an illegality as neither any agenda was circulated, as required under bye-law No. 27 of the registered bye-laws of the Society nor was any resolution recorded in the proceedings book in terms of bye-law No. 33 of the bye-laws of the Society. 9. I have heard arguments of the counsel, who advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, perused the petition and the Annexures attached thereto. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the order dated December 1, 2000 (copy Annexure P-5) is in illegality and cannot be sustained in law. 9. I have heard arguments of the counsel, who advanced arguments on behalf of the petitioners and the respondents, perused the petition and the Annexures attached thereto. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the order dated December 1, 2000 (copy Annexure P-5) is in illegality and cannot be sustained in law. He drew my attention to Section 33(1) of the Act and pointed out the relevant portion where the words mentioned are that where in any Co-operative Society, a Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of this Act, rules or bye-laws does not exist or has ceased to exist, then only the Registrar can appoint the Administrators. 11. In the present case, the resignations which were submitted by the petitioners were submitted in a resolution a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-1, will not have any meaning, as on August 10, 2000, a letter was sent to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana, in which they have stated that their resignations should be ignored and instructions may be issued to the concerned authorities to this effect, and they be allowed to continue to hold their offices. 12. Taking both these arguments into consideration, it is amply clear that the resignations which were submitted by the petitioners were withdrawn by them before they were accepted by the competent authority. It is clear from Section 33(1) of the Act that the words that the Committee does not exist and has ceased to exist will not apply to the petitioners, as the Committee on the date when the order dated December 1, 2000 (Annexure P-5) was passed, the Committee was very much in existence, as the resignations of the members of the Committee had not been accepted. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the petitioners should have filed revision petition before coming to this Honble Court. I do not agree with this argument as the petitioners were apprehensive that they would not have got justice from the authorities and the only efficacious remedy left with them was the one to be availed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on a decision in the case of Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners had placed reliance on a decision in the case of Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab etc. 1993(2) PLR 147 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held as under :- "On a consideration of the judgments quoted above, it is clear that while the remedy for the purpose of challenging the result of the election by way of an election petition under Section 13-B of the Act may be available yet in the facts and circumstances of a particular case the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The mere availability of an alternative remedy is not the solitary test; such a remedy must, in addition, be adequate and efficacious..." Keeping in view that law laid down in the case cited above, though this case is of a Municipal Committee, it is crystal clear that if there is no efficacious remedy available to the party, he is well within his right to come to the High Court directly invoking extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. After going through the orders passed by different authorities, it seems that all of them were mixed up with those very persons who wanted that the functioning of the society should not go on smoothly. 15. With these observations, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated December 1, 2000 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative societies, Panchkula, is quashed. It is further directed that the Managing Committee which was elected on July 12, 1998 will function as usual till its term is over, i.e., on July 11, 2003. Writ petition allowed.