JUDGMENT 1. Alleging commission of misconduct by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings vide Annexure-A, on 04.03.2013. Petitioner filed statement of objections vide Annexure-B, on 15.04.2013. 2nd respondent appointed the 3rd respondent on 16.04.2013, as an Enquiry Officer. Petitioner filed objections and an application on 17.04.2013, stating that he has no confidence in the 3rd respondent and requested him not to proceed with the enquiry. 2. 3rd respondent having rejected the request, petitioner filed a dispute vide Annexure-D, under S.70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, ‘the Act’) before the 1st respondent. On 24.06.2013, the 2nd respondent filed an application in the dispute, to raise preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the dispute. Petitioner filed an application on 29.07.2013, vide Annexure-F and sought permission to amend the dispute. The 1st respondent by an Order dated 29.07.2013, as at Annexure-G, having dismissed the dispute on the bar of jurisdiction, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perused the writ record. 4. 2nd respondent having raised objection regarding jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to entertain the dispute by making a reference to the Government Notification No.C0:139:CLM:2010, dated 17.02.2011, issued in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (5) of S.2-A of the Act, conferring powers on different categories of officers of the Department, particularly, as per Sl. No.VIII-A, the power to adjudicate disputes filed under S.70 of the Act relating to Urban Co-op. Banks having been vested with the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies attached to the Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Ltd., Bengaluru, under Rule 441 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (excluding Amanath Co-operative Bank Ltd. Bangalore), the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order. 5. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned advocate, in view of the said Notification, does not dispute the fact that the dispute as at Annexure-D ought to have been presented before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies attached to the Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Ltd., Bengaluru and that there is wrong presentation of the dispute before the 1st respondent. 6. 5. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned advocate, in view of the said Notification, does not dispute the fact that the dispute as at Annexure-D ought to have been presented before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies attached to the Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Ltd., Bengaluru and that there is wrong presentation of the dispute before the 1st respondent. 6. The 1st respondent having found that he has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute, has fallen in error in dismissing the dispute, instead of returning the dispute petition to the petitioner for presentation to the proper forum, on the analogy of the provision in Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, which is clear and specific. The Court of Tribunal, at any stage of the proceeding can return the plaint/petition, to be presented to the Court or Tribunal in which it should have been instituted, subject to the provision of Rule 10-A of Order VII of CPC. In the circumstance, the view taken by the 1st respondent, to dismiss the petition, being arbitrary and illegal, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the order as at Annexure-G is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to return the dispute as at Annexure-D and the application as at Annexure-F, to the petitioner, for its presentation to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies attached to the Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Ltd., Bengaluru, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The dispute when presented, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies attached to the Karnataka State Co-operative Urban Banks Federation Ltd., Bengaluru, shall issue notice to both parties and decide the case in accordance with law. No costs.