ORDER Writ petition by persons who were Directors of the Hubli Taluk Agricultural Produce Marketing Society Limited, Hubli and who have suffered an order of disqualification under the provisions of Section 29-C(8) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'), in terms of the orders at Annexures –A1 to A7 to the writ petition. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking for quashing of these orders notwithstanding an appellate remedy under Section 106 of the Act, for the reason that the petitioners and two others had earlier approached this Court in the context of the show-cause notice which had been issued for the very purpose seeking for quashing of the show-cause notice, but this Court while dismissing the writ petition, nevertheless, observed in terms of the order dated 24-7-2008 that the petitioners may file their objections to the show-cause notice within a further period of four weeks from that date and the respondents were required to consider such objections and pass orders afresh, but even without waiting for the petitioners to file their objections, the Assistant Registrar has concluded the enquiry and has passed the impugned orders and therefore the order is not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also in violation of the specific directions issued by this Court. It is on such premise, the petitioners have sought for the bypassing of the appellate remedy and seeking for relief before this Court. 3. The petitioners have also questioned the legality of the Government order of even date (Annexure-J to the writ petition) appointing a Special Officer to manage the affairs of the society in place of the erstwhile Managing Committee, as all the members of the committee have been disqualified. 4. This Court while directing issue of notices to the respondents granted an interim order on 4-8-2008, staying the operation of the impugned orders at Annexures-A1 to A7. . 5. Subsequently, the respondents have entered appearance through Ms. K Vidyavati, learned Government Pleader. 4. This Court while directing issue of notices to the respondents granted an interim order on 4-8-2008, staying the operation of the impugned orders at Annexures-A1 to A7. . 5. Subsequently, the respondents have entered appearance through Ms. K Vidyavati, learned Government Pleader. Statement of objections has also been filed on behalf of the first respondent, pointing out, inter alia, that there were no bona fides in the petition and the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal and even the two other Directors who had approached this Court earlier, have filed appeal under Section 106 and therefore the interim order should be vacated and the petitioners also be directed to approach the Appellate Authority. 6. I have heard Sri RM. Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Ms. K Vidyavathi, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 7. While it is true that normally an appellate remedy should be exhausted and persons approaching this Court invoking writ jurisdiction not availing the statutory remedy are not entertained, in the present case, I find that the petitioners had been specifically directed to be given four weeks' time to file objections and thereafter the Assistant Registrar to consider that objection and to pass orders. A perusal of the records indicates that the petitioners did not have such an opportunity, particularly as the order itself has come to be passed on 29-7-2008, whereas, this Court disposed of the writ petition only on 24-7-2008. Even when the earlier writ petition had been dismissed by this Court, this Court had directed four weeks' time to be given to the petitioners to file their objections. 8. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners 1 to 5 neither filed objections earlier nor had an opportunity etc., this is opposed by the learned Government Pleader pointing out that the other Directors had filed their objections and the Assistant Registrar has also examined such objections and has passed order and therefore the petitioners should also approach the Appellate Authority, as availed by the other two Directors. 9. It may be true that the other two Directors have filed appeals, but insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, the order passed is one denying the very opportunity granted as part of the observations while disposing of the earlier round of writ petition filed by the very petitioners. 9. It may be true that the other two Directors have filed appeals, but insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned, the order passed is one denying the very opportunity granted as part of the observations while disposing of the earlier round of writ petition filed by the very petitioners. That opportunity cannot be allowed to go ineffective or meaningless. It is only for this reason, this matter warrants interference. 10. The impugned orders at Annexures-Al to A7 are quashed for the purpose of remanding the matter to the Assistant Registrar with a specific direction that the petitioners are permitted four weeks from today to file their objections before the Assistant Registrar who has to examine their objections, hear them on a day fixed by the Assistant Registrar and then to pass orders on the merits. The appointment of Special Officer under Annexure-J being consequential to the disqualification, does not sustain independently and is also quashed. 11. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. 12. LA. No. I of2008 for imp leading is rejected.