JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this writ petition is show cause notice, dated 26th May, 2015 (Annexure P4) issued by the Sub-Registrar (SDM), Sub Division Nahan, under H.P. Society Registration Act, District Sirmaur, H.P., while exercising powers under Sections 41 and 45 (3) of The Himachal Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”). 2. It is a moot question – whether the writ petition is maintainable? 3. The show cause notice is not a final order. It is for the petitioner to show cause and take all the grounds, which are available as weapons in his armoury. 4. This Court in CWP No. 1159 of 2014F titled as Sandeep Sethi versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 10th March, 2014; CWP No. 3012 of 2015, titled as Micromax Informatics Ltd. versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 24th June, 2015; and CWP No. 4989 of 2014, titled as Partap Shukla versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 17th July, 2014, while relying upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the cases titled as Union of India and Anr. Vesus Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in 2007 AIR (SCW) 607, and Special Director and another versus Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another, reported in 2004 AIR(SCW) 416, has held that the show cause notice cannot be questioned by the medium of the writ petition and the writ petition is premature. 5. In the case titled as M/s Indian Technomac Company Ltd. versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 4779 of 2014, decided on 4th August, 2014, this Court has held that the writ petition is not maintainable when the alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. 6. While going through the mandate of the Act, it appears that the concerned authority has exercised the power in terms of Sections 41 and 45 (3) of the Act. 7. Having said so, the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated at the Bar that he has moved an application before the competent authority for inclusion of some of the members of the society, but in view of the show cause notice, the concerned authority is not making the orders. 9. 8. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated at the Bar that he has moved an application before the competent authority for inclusion of some of the members of the society, but in view of the show cause notice, the concerned authority is not making the orders. 9. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition by directing the concerned authority to determine the show cause notice within two weeks after seeking reply from the petitioner and giving an opportunity of hearing to him. 10. It goes without saying that in case the decision goes against the petitioner, he is at liberty to challenge the same before the competent authority and the order be not implemented/executed for a period of two weeks enabling the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. 11. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending applications.