ORDER : 1. Office has pointed out delay in filing of the instant special appeal, for which a separate application has been filed u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons mentioned therein, we are satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained, duly supported by the affidavit. 3. Accordingly, the application filed u/Sec.5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay stands condoned. 4. Heard on merits. 5. The agreement for transportation of milk through insulated road milk tanker was executed between the parties. At one point of time, his tanker No. RJ-19.GE-2784 was on the way to transport of dairy milk on 08.06.2016 from Ajmer to IPC, Sikandarabad, the random inspection has taken place and the authority found certain discrepancies which was duly recorded and a notice was served upon the petitioner dt.24/25.06.2016. In furtherance thereto, a demand was raised which was 20 times the penalty imposed vide order dt. 29.08.2016 6. Both the two orders were the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition on manifold grounds and one of the ground which was emphasized by the appellant's counsel before us as well is that it was not open for the respondents to change the conditions unilaterally prejudicial to his interest and he became victim because of the unilateral change in conditions of contract imposing a fine & penalty upon the petitioner and according to him he has abide the conditions of contract duly signed & executed between the parties. 7. After the response being filed by the respondents, objection was raised that an inbuilt mechanism has been provided u/sub-sec.(1)(b) of Sec.58 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 and all the contentions advanced can certainly be looked into by the authority with whom power has been vested to examine the orders which are challenged in the instant proceedings. 8. The ld. Single Judge after having heard the matter, was persuaded that when the alternative remedy is available to the appellant in assailing the orders within the ambit of Sec.58 of the Act, 2001, it may not be appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 9. 8. The ld. Single Judge after having heard the matter, was persuaded that when the alternative remedy is available to the appellant in assailing the orders within the ambit of Sec.58 of the Act, 2001, it may not be appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this court u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 9. The main thrust of submission of counsel for the appellant is that the question which he has raised of unilateral change in conditions of contract, duly signed & executed between the parties, is not within the ambit & scope of the appellate authority and can only be considered by this court in its extraordinary jurisdicaton u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 10. Although the submission was not raised before the ld. Single Judge but we are very clear in our mind that Sec.58 of the Act, 2001 grants opportunity to the aggrieved person to question the disputes, if any, existing within the parties and all the ancillary questions to the subject matter of dispute between the parties can certainly open to be looked into by the authority with whom the power has been vested u/Sec.58 of the Act, 2001 including the question which has been raised of the unilateral change in the conditions of contract, duly signed & executed between the parties as well. 11. After we have take note of the submissions made and after the view has been expressed by the ld. Single Judge not to interfere at the stage when alternative statutory remedy is available to the appellant invoking Sec.58 of the Act, 2001, this court finds no reason to deviate and it may not be advisable for this court to invoke its power u/Art.226/227 of the Constitution. 12. Consequently, the instant special appeal, being devoid of merit, accordingly stands dismissed.