JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioners are the members of the Indian Airlines Pilots Co-operative House Building Society. In the meeting held on 6th May, 2000 they were ordered to be expelled from the Society. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners filed an appeal under section 114 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Haryana. On consideration of the matter, the Registrar found that the presence of certain persons during the course of the meeting was doubtful. The copies of the minutes of the General Body Meeting were not supplied to the petitioners despite their request. Thus, it was held that the "meeting dated 6th May, 2000 was an invalid meeting and all the decisions taken during this meeting including expulsion of appellants" were set aside. The Society was directed "to maintain the transparency and follow proper procedure in issuing the notices and for holding of the meetings". Finally, the Society was given "liberty to take action against the appellants after giving full opportunity of hearing" to them. Thereafter, both the petitioners were given notices to show cause as to why they be not expelled from the society vide letters dated 15th February, 2002. Copies of these notices are at Annexures P.4 and P.5 with the writ petition. 2. The petitioners challenge the issue of Show Cause Notices. They pray that "the part of the order of the learned Registrar which gave the respondent No. 3 the liberty to expel the petitioners again" and the Show Cause Notices be quashed. 3. Shri D.P. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that the Registrar had erred in permitting the respondent-Society to proceed afresh against the petitioners. Once the expulsion was found to be illegal, there was no warrant for a further trial. The petitioners could not have been vexed twice on the same allegations. The proceedings are a contrivance to find some excuse to expel the petitioners. 4. It is the admitted position that the petitioners had been served with separate Show Cause Notices. Copy of the notice issued to petitioner No. 1 on 27th March, 2000 is at Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. It was inter alia alleged that he is "engaged in activities which are prejudicial to the interest of the society....". Various instances had been quoted. The petitioner had submitted his reply. Copy of the notice issued to petitioner No. 1 on 27th March, 2000 is at Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. It was inter alia alleged that he is "engaged in activities which are prejudicial to the interest of the society....". Various instances had been quoted. The petitioner had submitted his reply. Thereafter, a meeting of the Society was held on 6th May, 2000. A perusal of the order passed by the Registrar on 4th February, 2000 shows that the resolution for expulsion had been "passed by 101 members favouring expulsion... and by one member favouring the petitioners." The remaining members were alleged to have abstained. Since the presence of some of the members was found to be doubtful and the list of persons who had abstained had not been at tached with the minutes of the meeting, the Registrar had taken the view that the meeting was not valid. It appears that he also took the view that a copy of the minutes of the General Body Meeting should have been supplied to the petitioners. Thus, the order of expulsion was quashed. However, there is nothing on record to show that the Registrar had found the allegations against the petitioners to be false or baseless. In this situation, it is clear that the Registrar had not exonerated the petitioners. Only a procedural defect had been noticed. Thus, the decisions was annulled. In this situation, we are unable to uphold the plea that the Registrar did not have the jurisdiction to allow the Society to proceed afresh. 5. This procedure is not unknown to our jurisprudence. Very often the action of the employer in terminating the services of an employee is annulled by the Courts on account of denial of a reasonable opportunity. While setting aside the order of termination it is often directed that the employer shall be entitled to proceed afresh in accordance with law. This is precisely what the Registrar has done in the present case. Still more, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to refer to any provision to show that the Registrar was debarred from doing so. In such a situation the petitioners contention that the Registrar had erred in granting liberty to the Society to proceed afresh cannot be sustained. 6. Still more, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to refer to any provision to show that the Registrar was debarred from doing so. In such a situation the petitioners contention that the Registrar had erred in granting liberty to the Society to proceed afresh cannot be sustained. 6. Shri Kaushik submits that the circumstances of the case did not warrant that the petitioners should have been vexed a second time. Even this contention is misconceived. It is only on account of the finding that the presence of certain members was doubtful, that the proceedings of the meeting have been annulled. However, the Registrar has not exonerated the petitioners. Thus, it cannot be said that the there is a re-trial or that the petitioners are being tried twice for the same charge. 7. Shri Kaushik submits that the Show Cause Notices issued to the petitioners are a contrivance to expel them from the Society. We find no warrant for this submission. Certain actions of the petitioners have been objected to by the Society. They have been called upon to explain their position. The matter has to be considered by the Society in accordance with the provisions of the bye- laws. The decision has to be taken in conformity with law. The Registrar has directed that the Society shall maintain transparency and follow proper procedure in issuing the notices and in holding the meeting. Nothing could be fairer than this. It appears that the petition is a contrivance to avoid consideration by the appropriate authority. We find no fault with the action of the respondents. 8. Shri Kaushik submits that there is a murky side of the whole affair the affairs of the Society are not a matter for consideration by this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, Shri Sarin, Senior Advocate, who has entered a caveat on behalf of the respondent-Society has pointed out that under section 115 of the Act the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy by way of a revision. The petitioners have chosen to avoid it. Shri Kaushik submits that the remedy is not efficacious. Since we have considered the matter on merits, we do not think it necessary to now relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. The petitioners have chosen to avoid it. Shri Kaushik submits that the remedy is not efficacious. Since we have considered the matter on merits, we do not think it necessary to now relegate the petitioners to the alternative remedy. 9. No other point has been raised. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this petition. It is, consequently, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.