JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. The petitioner is a Cooperative Society and has filed the instant petition primarily seeking quashing of the inspection note (Annexure P-4) submitted by respondent no. 4 and has further sought quashing of office order dated 16.8.2016 (Annexure P-6) whereby the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Dharamshala has, on the basis of the inspection note, ordered an inquiry (surcharge proceedings) against the petitioner under Section 69 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (for short “the Act”) by appointing the Block Inspector as an Inquiry Officer, who has further been directed to submit his report within one month. 2. In addition to the aforesaid reliefs, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice (Annexure P-12) issued to it seeking therein its justification and comments regarding appointment of two employees being in violation of the applicable laws. 3. The petitioner was asked to justify the maintainability of the petition on the ground of availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy under the Act. 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that no such statutory remedy is available to the petitioner and, therefore, it has filed the instant petition. 5. We have gone through the provisions of the Act and Rules and are of the considered view that the petitioner has not only an alternative but efficacious statutory remedy available to it under the Act. 6. Chapter-VIII of the Act specifically deals with the audit, inquiry, inspection and surcharge. Section 65 therein deals with inspection of cooperative societies. Section 67 deals with inquiry by the Registrar. 6. Chapter-VIII of the Act specifically deals with the audit, inquiry, inspection and surcharge. Section 65 therein deals with inspection of cooperative societies. Section 67 deals with inquiry by the Registrar. Whereas, Section 69 relates to surcharge proceedings, which are to be initiated in case during the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a co-operative society, it is found that any person who is or was entrusted with the organization or management of such society, or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to the provisions of the Act, the rules or the bye-law or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to the society, the Registrar may, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, inquire himself or direct any person authorized by him, by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person. 7. Chapter-XII relates to the jurisdiction, appeal and review and the relevant provisions for the adjudication of this petition is contained in Section 94, which reads thus: “4. Review and Revision:— (1) The State Government except in a case in which an appeal is preferred under Section 93 may call for an examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or any proceedings of the Registrar or of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, and may pass thereon such orders as it thinks fit. (2) The Registrar may at any time:— (a) review any order passed by himself; (b) call for and examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or the proceedings of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority and if it appears to him that any decision, order or award or any proceedings so called or should for any reason be modified, annulled or reversed, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit; Provided that, before any order is made under sub-section (1) and (2), the State Government or the Registrar as the case may be shall afford to any person likely to be affected adversely by such orders an opportunity or being heard. “Provided further that every application under sub-section (1) and (2), to the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be shall be made within ninety days from the date of the communication of the order sought to be reviewed or revised.” 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly shows that this Section gives revisional powers to the State Government in a case where no appeal under section 93 of the Act has been preferred and similar powers have been conferred upon the Registrar to be exercised either suo motu or on an application of a party, provided the same is preferred within 90 days from the date of communication of the order sought to be reviewed or revised and further that the persons likely to be effected adversely by such order is afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is immaterial whether the revisional power is exercised, on action initiated at the instance of the interested party or suo motu, the order passed would be within jurisdiction. 9. This Section specifically deals with the power of the State Government/Registrar to call for and to examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or any proceedings. 9. This Section specifically deals with the power of the State Government/Registrar to call for and to examine the record of any inquiry or inspection held or made under this Act or any proceedings. The State Government can examine any proceedings of the Registrar or any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority, whereas the Registrar is empowered to call for and examine the proceedings of any person subordinate to him or acting on his authority and if it appears to him that any decision, order or award or any proceedings so called or should for any reason be modified, annulled or reversed, may pass such order thereon as he thinks fit. 10. However, it needs to be clarified that if revisional application is not maintainable, fortiori suo motu powers cannot also be exercised. 11. The power exercised by the State Government/Registrar under Section 94 of the Act is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon them. 12. In terms of the first proviso, the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, is obliged to afford to any person likely to be effected adversely by such order an opportunity of being heard. In terms of the section proviso, every application under sub-section (1) and (2), to the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, has to be made within 90 days from the date of the communication of the order sought to be reviewed or revised. 13. In view of what has been observed above, we can safely come to the following conclusions: (i) The State Government or the Registrar under Section 94 of the Act can exercise its suo motu revisonal jurisdiction or on an application made by an aggrieved party; (ii) the remedy of revision before the State Government is barred only in the cases where an appeal has already been preferred under section 93 of the Act; (iii) the remedy of revision either suo motu or otherwise can be exercised only against the decision or order passed by the authority under the Act or proceedings arising out of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. However, this remedy cannot be invoked against an order passed by the society; (iv) the suo motu power of revision cannot be exercised by the State Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, if at the instance of an aggrieved party, the revision is not maintainable, fortiori suo motu power cannot also be exercised. 14. On the basis of the aforesaid application, we have no hesitation to conclude that the petitioner if aggrieved by the inspection note (Annexure P-4) on the basis of which, surcharge proceedings (Annexure P-6) have been ordered can conveniently approach the competent authority for the redressal of its grievance under section 94 of the Act. 15. As regards the communication (Annexure P-12) dated 21.9.2016, it is for the petitioner to file reply to the said communication. No exception can be taken to the same as it only calls upon the petitioner to justify the appointments of its employees and this communication per se does not adversely effect the rights of the petitioner. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the firm view that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutional of India is not the proper proceedings for adjudicating the disputes as raised in the instant petition, more especially, when not only an alternative but equally efficacious and proper remedy is available to the petitioner under the Act. 17. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226. [See: State of Bihar and Others vs. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. (2002) 1 SCC 216 ]. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the instant petition is not maintainable as the proper remedy for the petitioner is to approach the statutory authorities in terms of the Act. 19. Before parting, we may observe that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be opinion on the merits of the case. 20. With these observations, the petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications. 19. Before parting, we may observe that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be opinion on the merits of the case. 20. With these observations, the petition is dismissed, so also the pending applications. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedy under the Act. Costs easy.