S. P. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India, interalia, challenging the order of termination dated 26th July 2002 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. ). ( 2 ) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that a surprise inspection of Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti ltd. Garavpur was made by the District assistant Registrar, Sahkari Samiti, UP phule Nagar, respondent no. 4 on 6. 9. 2001. The inspection report dated 6. 9. 2001 was submitted in this regard by the said District Assistant Registrar, sahkari Samiti U. P. Jyotiba Phule Nagar, respondent no. 4. A copy of the said inspection report dated 6. 9. 2001 has been filed as annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, a charge sheet dated 24. 12. 2001 was served on the petitioner by the Secreary/enquiry Officer, garavpur, Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti limited, Tehsil Hasanpur, district Jyotiba phule Nagar. A copy of the said charge sheet dated 24. 12. 2001 has been filed as annexure no. 3 to the writ petition. ( 4 ) IT further appears that the petitioner submitted his reply dated 23. 1. 2002 to the said charge sheet. A copy of the said reply dated 23. 1. 2002 has been filed as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition. ( 5 ) IN the meanwhile, it appears that an FIR dated 29. 1. 2002 under sections 420/409 IPC was also lodged against the petitioner. ( 6 ) IT appears that the enquiry officer after considering the said reply dated 23. 1. 2002 submitted by the petitioner found the charges against the petitioner to be proved. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER, the order dated 26. 7. 2002 was passed, interalia, terminating the services of the petitioner. A copy of the said order dated 26. 7. 2002 has been filed as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. ( 8 ) THE said order dated 26. 7. 2002, inter alia, mentioned that a resolution dated 18. 7. 2002 had been passed in the matter of the petitioner. ( 9 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing respondent no. 3 and 4. 1 to the writ petition. ( 8 ) THE said order dated 26. 7. 2002, inter alia, mentioned that a resolution dated 18. 7. 2002 had been passed in the matter of the petitioner. ( 9 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing respondent no. 3 and 4. ( 10 ) HAVING considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy under section 128 of the U. P. Cooperative societies Act, 1965 (in short the Act ). The said section 128 of the Act provides as follows: "registrars power to annual resolution of a cooperative society or cancel order passed by an officer of a cooperative society in certain cases- The Registrar may- (i) annual any resolution passed by the committee of management or the general body of any cooperative society, or (ii) cancel any order passed by an officer of a cooperative society. if he is of the opinion that the resolution or the order, as the case may be , is not covered by the objects of the society , or is in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye laws of the society, whereupon every such resolution or order shall become void and inoperative and be deleted from the records of the society. " ( 11 ) IN view of the provisions of clause (i) of Section 128 of the Act, the registrar within the meaning of section 2 (r) read with section 3 of the Act has power to annual any resolution passed by the committee of management, or the general body of the cooperative society. Under clause (ii) of section 128 of the act, the Registrar has power to cancel any order passed by an officer of the cooperative society. ( 12 ) IN view of this, the petitioner may seek appropriate relief under section 128 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies act, 1965 against the said order dated 26. 7. 2002 and the resolution dated 18. 7. 2002 referred to in the said order dated 26. 7. 2002. ( 13 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 7. 2002 and the resolution dated 18. 7. 2002 referred to in the said order dated 26. 7. 2002. ( 13 ) THE writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. ( 14 ) IN case, the petitioner approaches the Registrar under section 128 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies act, 1965, the Registrar will decide the matter expeditiously. .