JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J.:- 1. Petitioner, registered as a Co-operative Society under the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Co-operative Societies Act, 1989, (for brevity 'Act') seeks quashment of notice dated 14th February, 2015, issued by respondent No. 4, by virtue whereof the petitioner-society has been called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action against its management be not initiated, etc. The aforesaid show cause notice appears to have been issued in the context of alleged irregularities in managing the affairs of the Cooperative Society. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in terms of order dated 27.02.2015 was directed to demonstrate as to how the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the Jammu and Kashmir State is maintainable. This course was adopted as writ petitions impugning a show cause notice are not ordinarily maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 , submitted that since the impugned order is without jurisdiction, the writ petition is maintainable. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant paragraphs of the judgment hereunder: "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagppa v. Divisional Commr. Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show cause notice does not given rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show cause notice or charge sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." 3. The judgment, though relied upon by the learned counsel, eloquently stipulates that a mere show cause notice does not give rise to a cause of action, because it cannot be termed as an adverse order affecting the rights of any party, unless it has been issued without jurisdiction. A writ petition is maintainable only when some right is infringed. The show cause notice does not infringe rights of any party. Thus, the writ petition is rather squarely covered by the judgment supra cited and relied upon by the petitioner and, therefore, on the face of it, is not maintainable. 4. Next it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice has been issued by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Baramulla, who has no jurisdiction to issue the same. This argument is bereft of substance inasmuch as the impugned order has been issued by the Deputy Registrar under written directions from the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Jammu & Kashmir, who, admittedly, is the competent authority to inspect or direct inspection of books of Cooperative Societies under Section 66 of the Act, which clearly specifies that the person authorized by the Registrar shall have all the powers of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 5. 5. Section 67 of the Act contemplates an inquiry by the Registrar into the constitution, working and financial condition of a cooperative society. Section 70 of the Act deals with settlement of disputes and provides for reference of disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a cooperative society to the Registrar for decision. Moreso, it specifically bars the jurisdiction of courts to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. 6. What emerges from the afore-stated provisions is that it is manifestly clear that the show cause notice issued in the instant case at the instance of the Registrar Cooperative Societies is not without jurisdiction. It can also not be said that the show cause notice does not relate to management of cooperative societies, and, therefore, falls outside the purview of aforesaid provisions of the Act relating to inquiry, inspection and settlement of disputes with regard to management of cooperative societies. 7. In the aforementioned backdrop, no exceptional case can be said to have been made out justifying invocation of writ jurisdiction of this Court by the petitioner. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is dismissed along with connected CMP in limine. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to respondents 1 & 2.