Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner society is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8th May, 2000 (Annexure P-4), passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies Ferozepur (respondent No. 1 herein) remanding the case to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bathinda to enquire into the matter and decide the case afresh. 2. Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioner Society handed over certain stock of medicines to its cashier (respondent No. 4), vide receipt dated 2nd April, 1980. Respondent No. 4 allegedly did not properly manage the stock that consisted of raw material and finished goods, thus causing certain shortage. It was pointed out in the audit report dated 31st March, 1991 that raw material worth Rs. 1,13,750/- and finished goods worth Rs. 4264/- were still due from respondent No. 4. It was also pointed out in the audit report that said stocks were in custody of respondent No. 4. Resultantly, vide a resolution No. 2 passed on 25th September, 1993, petitioner society decided to initiate arbitration proceedings under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the arbitration proceedings, recovery of Rs. 1,18,014/- along with interest of Rs. 35,520/- and expenses of Rs. 250/- were claimed. On 16th March, 1999, the Arbitrator gave the award, Annexure P-1, in favour of of the society awarding Rs. 1,53,784/- to the society. Out of this amount, Rs. 18,000/- was ordered to be deducted as the same already stood deposited by the respondent No. 4 with the petitioner society. Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against the award dated 16th March, 1999. However, the same was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 on 31st August, 1999, vide order Annexure P-2. Being dissatisfied, respondent No. 4 preferred revision petition under Section 69 of the Act. Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal against the award dated 16th March, 1999. However, the same was dismissed by the respondent No. 2 on 31st August, 1999, vide order Annexure P-2. Being dissatisfied, respondent No. 4 preferred revision petition under Section 69 of the Act. The same was heard by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (respondent No. 1) and decided on 8th May, 2000 holding as under :- "After hearing both the parties and going through the file it appears that the society has not produced any evidence in order to prove its case whereas it becomes the duty of the first party to prove its claim and it was not done and it cannot take advantage of the weakness of the second party because the petitioner says that medicines were prepared in the year 1988 and were ordered to be sold in 1992 and the medicines still lie with the societies. Therefore, I remand this case to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bathinda to enquire this fact so that he may decide the matter after hearing both the parties." The aforesaid order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 3 The only ground agitated by counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was not competent to entertain the revision petition under Section 69 of the Act and to decide the same. He has, thus, sought quashing of the order, Annexure P-4, passed by Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 8.5.2000. A separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 & 2 and respondent No. 4. The stand of respondents Nos. 1 & 2 before this court is that Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ferozepur has been authorised by Punjab Government to entertain and decide the revision petitions under Section 69 of the Act. According to their reply, these powers have been delegated vide notification No. 1669-C.V-78/6450 dated 21st March, 1978 issued by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been correctly passed and there is no legal infirmity with the same. Similar stand has been taken by respondent No. 4 in reply filed by him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the petition. 5. It has been submitted that the impugned order has been correctly passed and there is no legal infirmity with the same. Similar stand has been taken by respondent No. 4 in reply filed by him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record annexed with the petition. 5. It appears that the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies came to the conclusion that society had not produced evidence in support of its case and thus award could not have been passed against respondent No. 4 due to weakness in his case. He remanded the case to the Deputy Registrar to inquire into the matter and decide the case afresh. The only ground of challenge is that the Joint Registrar did not have the power to entertain the revision petition and pass the impugned order. However, a perusal of Notification No. 1669-C.V- 78/6450 dated 21st March, 1978 shows that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3, sub section (3) thereof, the Government has conferred the powers of Registrar on Additional Registrar, Joint Registrars, Deputy Registrars etc. In view of the said notification, there can hardly be any doubt that at the time of passing the impugned order, Joint Registrar had power to entertain revision petition and decide the same in accordance with law. Neither any rejoinder has been filed to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2 nor vires of notification dated 21st March, 1978 have been challenged in the present writ petition. It appears that the same question cropped up before this court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP No. 1597 of 2002 and notification dated 21st March, 1978 was considered in the same. It was held therein that Additional Registrar was competent to exercise the powers of Registrar under Section 69 of the Act. In the instant case, same power has been exercised by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Since vide notification dated 21st March, 1978, Joint Registrars were also conferred the powers of Registrar, I am of the considered view that judgment delivered in Jarnail Singhs case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the instant case. 6. It is, thus, held that the Joint Registrar was competent to entertain the revision petition and decide the same. Since this is the only ground of challenge, there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this court. 6. It is, thus, held that the Joint Registrar was competent to entertain the revision petition and decide the same. Since this is the only ground of challenge, there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this court. The writ petition is thus devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed.