Judgment The petitioner is a member of the third respondent Cooperative Bank. The petitioner had filed a petition under section 84 of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 to disqualify the 5th respondent, who was a newly elected Director of the third respondent Cooperative Society. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent is disqualified under section 34(1)(b)(i) of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act, as he had dues with various Societies. 2. The 2nd respondent, who is a delegated authority under section 84 of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act and who heard the dispute, passed the impugned order dated 13. 2009 rejecting the case of the petitioner. The petitioner did not prefer any Revision in terms of Section 141 of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act but chose to file the present Writ Petition directly before this Court. 3. Notice was ordered in the Writ Petition. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a counter affidavit dated 28. 2009 had been filed. Attention was drawn to the Court Section 141 of the Act regarding the revisional power of the Registrar. It was stated that the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act is a self-contained code and it has given revisional power to the Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner cannot file a Writ Petition without exhausting the statutory alternative remedy. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, there is no reference as to why the petitioner did not exercise the statutory alternative remedy and it is silent. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under Section 84 of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act, power has been conferred on the Registrar for hearing disputes touching the business of the Society. Therefore, when that power is delegated to a subordinate, he also exercised the same power as that of the Registrar. Therefore, the revisional remedy under section 141 of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act is either illusory or it was not practicable to file such revision. 5. By virtue of Section 161 of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act, by a notification in the official gazette, the Government can authorise any authority or officer to exercise any of the powers vested in it by this Act. Therefore, by virtue of the power of delegation under section 161 r/w Section 171 (3) of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act, the power has been delegated to a subordinate to the Registrar. Therefore, by virtue of the power of delegation under section 161 r/w Section 171 (3) of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act, the power has been delegated to a subordinate to the Registrar. When there is a valid delegation of power to a subordinate of the Registrar, the power of the Revision can thus be exercised by the Registrar, as he does exercise any authority under section 84. 6. The Supreme Court, more or less in similar circumstances, vide its judgment in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs.Ramanaiah reported in (2009) 7 SCC 165 had stated that in case where power is delegated to a subordinate authority and if the original authority himself had exercised such a power, there is no impediment for the very same authority to review his own order on an appropriate application. Even otherwise, the contention raised by the petitioner that the Registrar is disqualified from hearing the revision, though he is not the authority, who decided the initial matter under section 84 of the Puducherry Cooperative Societies Act cannot be countenanced by this Court. 7. This Court in an identical circumstance with reference to the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, vide its judgment in G.Paneerselvam vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Tirupur reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 501 has taken a view that the statutory revisional remedy or the appellate remedy provided under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act must be exercised before approaching this Court Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in A.Balaraman vs. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Cheyyar, Tiruvannamalai reported in (2009) 3 MLJ 1032 . 8. In the light of the same, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 9. Since the petitioner has been directed to file a revision before the revisional authority if he is so advised and accordingly files any revision within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appropriate revisional authority shall consider the same without reference to the limitation and pass orders on merits after due notice to parties within a reasonable time.