( 1 ) THE petitioners assailing the correctness and legality of the impugned order dt. 27. 7. 2001 in No. DRG/r/ssn/11/2001-02 on the file of the 2nd Respondent, Deputy Registrar of Co-op. , Societies, Bangalore Rural District, and the order dated 17. 10. 2001 in No. JRB/appeal/9/2001-02 on the file of the 1st respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, have presented the instant writ petition. ( 2 ) THESE petitioners are elected as Directors of the 2nd (3rd ) respondent Society. The only grievance made out before this Court as submitted by the learned counsel is, both the authorities have committed an error in passing orders superseding the management Committee of the 2nd respondent without following the mandatory provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and appointed the Administrator. The proceedings under Section 31 (1) of the Co-op. , Societies Act were initiated in pursuance of the direction issued by the A. R. C. S, which was not competent to pass such orders. ( 3 ) FURTHER, the specific case made out before the 2nd respondent that they requested the service of the Advocate but the same has been refused and 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the order holding that out of 12 charges, 10 charges have been proved. ( 4 ) THE concurrent finding of both the authorities are placed on record. The authorities have not considered the material objections filed by the petitioners in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules, the petitioners were constrained to file this petition. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and the learned Government Pleader, and perused the impugned order passed by both the authorities and the entire papers available in the file with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. ( 6 ) IT is manifest on the face of the records, the respondents 1 and 2 have not committed any error of law. Both the authorities have recorded the concurrent finding against the petitioners. Further, it emerges from the impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2 that out of 12 charges, 10 charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. Both the authorities have recorded the concurrent finding against the petitioners. Further, it emerges from the impugned orders of the respondents 1 and 2 that out of 12 charges, 10 charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubts. All the charges are serious in nature and the petitioners have failed to do their duties and responsibilities in pursuance of the relevant provisions of the Co-op. , Societies Act and Rules. Further, it is held that the petitioners have violated the bye-laws, directions and guidelines issued by the Officers attached to the respondents 1 and 2 and the Appellate Authority has further recorded a specific finding that the petitioners have misbehaved in an undignified manner and exhibited harshness and behaved in arrogant manner, when the Officers of the respondents Society inspected the said Society and further, both the authorities have recorded that the petitioners have consistently violated the mandatory provisions of the Co-op. , Societies Act and Rules. Therefore, having regard to all these serious charges proved against the petitioners, they have superseded the management of the respondents society and appointed the Administrator to take over management of the said society. Therefore, in view of the concurrent finding recorded by both the authorities against the petitioners, this court cannot sit over the judgment and decided in the writ of certiorari proceedings exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction nor the petitioners have made out any good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the authorities. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be rejected. ( 7 ) YET another reason the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be rejected in view of the well settle principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. . Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. , vs. Ram Bahagat reported in AIR 2002 SC 2914 . It is worthwhile to extract the well settled principles of law laid down by the Apex Court following the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 477 as below. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the disputes is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the fact of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised. ( 8 ) AS rightly held by the Apex Court that no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. As error of law which is apparent on the fact of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Therefore, if the well settled principles of law of the Apex Court is taken into consideration in the instant case, it is directly applicable to the present case. In the instant case, both the authorities have concurrently recorded a finding against the petitioners. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality in the impugned orders passed by both the authorities. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the serious charges levelled against the petitioners and the petitioners have failed to substantiate their case, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the legal aspects of the matter as stated supra,. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the serious charges levelled against the petitioners and the petitioners have failed to substantiate their case, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above and taking into consideration the legal aspects of the matter as stated supra,. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the authorities and the petitioners have not made out any good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition is dismissed. ( 11 ) THE learned Government pleader is directed to file memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .