M. KATJU, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the Milk Commissioner/registrar, Milk Co- operative Societies, U. P. dated 2-7-2003 copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. 3. The Petitioner No. 1 is the Committee of Management of a Milk Co-operative Society which is registered under the U. P. Co- operative Societies Act. The Petitioner No. 2 claims to be Chairman of the said Society. 4. It appears that the Committee of Management was suspended by the order of the State Government under Section 35 (I) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, and the Chairman of the Society was also suspended and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad was appointed as the Administrator of the Society under Section 35 (3 ). The petitioners challenged the order dated 24-7-2002 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4561 (MB) of 2002 before the Lucknow Bench of this Court but this petitioner was dismissed on 8- 10-2002 as stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition. 5. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that an enquiry was conducted by the Joint Milk Commissioner (Admn.), Lucknow who submitted his report dated 27-3-2003 in which it is alleged that he exonerated the President and the members of the Committee of Management from all the charges. However, copy of the report has not been annexed to this petition. 6. It is alleged in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that on 27- 6-2003 the Milk Commissioner/registrar, Milk Co-operative Society revoked the order of suspension dated 24-7-2002 under Section 35 (2) of the Act and reinstated the President and the members of the Society. True copy of the said order is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. However, that order dated 27-6-2003 was stayed subsequently by the Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 30-6-2003 and thereafter on 2-7-2003 the Respondent No. 2 revoked his earlier order dated 27-6-2003 and directed a fresh enquiry vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is alleged that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the order dated 2-7-2003. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, no orders have been passed on the report of the Joint Milk Commissioner dated 27-3- 2003 and hence it cannot be said that any order of exoneration has been passed. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, no orders have been passed on the report of the Joint Milk Commissioner dated 27-3- 2003 and hence it cannot be said that any order of exoneration has been passed. The impugned order dated 2-7-2003 shows that it is mentioned in the enquiry report dated 27-3-2003 that Sri V. K. Rai, General Manger of the Society at Ghaziabad had been summoned to appear before the enquiry officer on 14-2-2003 but despite the summons he did not appear, nor any reason given for non- appearance. He also did not make any request to be examined on some other date. 8. Since Sri V. K. Rai whose evidence was very material in the enquiry had not appeared, and the enquiry report was submitted without his evidence, it was decided by the Milk Commissioner to hold a de novo enquiry in which the evidence of Sri Rai would also be taken. It is in these circumstances that the impugned order was passed. 9. In our opinion since no orders have been passed on the enquiry report dated 27-2-2003 either accepting or rejecting it, and since the evidence of Sri V. K. Rai was not taken, the impugned order dated 2-7-2003 calls for no interference. 10. It must always be remembered that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction, Hence even if there is a technical violation of law this Court is not bound to interfere. In our opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise our discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. The petition is dismissed. However, we direct that the enquiry be completed expeditiously. Petition dismissed. .