JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. The present petition is being filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- "(i) That, the impugned order vide Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed. (ii) That, the respondent No. 1 may kindly be directed to make a detail inquiry against the respondent No. 2 in the matter take suitable legal action in accordance with law. (iii) That, any other just and proper relief warranting under the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the litigation be also given to the petitioner, in the ends of justice" 2. The present petition is being preferred against the order dated 13.08.2019 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative, District Guna whereby the services of the respondent No. 3 are directed to be restored from Manager in place of existing Manager. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner is a registered Prathamik Laghu Van Upaj Sahkari Sanstha Fatehgarh District Guna and the petitioner being a Administrator/President of the society is having a jurisdiction to file the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Initially the respondent No. 3 was appointed on the post of Manager in the Office of the petitioner but as the work was not found satisfactory and some irregularities and illegalities were committed by him in the society, for which, the competent authority of society has issued notice to the respondent No. 3 on 02.03.2018. The initial inquiry against the petitioner was conducted and has also approved by the respondent No. 2 and in pursuance to the same, meeting of the governing body was held and the resolution was passed after following the due process of law and a decision was taken to terminate the services of the respondent No. 3 and a fresh appointment be made. 4. It is pointed out that as per the Service Rule and M.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1960 the governing body of the concerning society was having jurisdiction to terminate the employee and making appointment as per their requirement. The respondent No. 3 was having right and a legal measure to challenge the resolution passed by the governing body where by terminating his services, by raising a grievance before the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar within 30 days from the date of resolution. The respondent No. 3 was having right and a legal measure to challenge the resolution passed by the governing body where by terminating his services, by raising a grievance before the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar within 30 days from the date of resolution. In terms of Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, the respondent No. 3 has not availed the aforesaid remedy. Instead he has approached the Local M.L.A. who has written a letter dated 30.01.2019 (Annexure P/7) directing the Deputy Registrar to look into the matter and apprise him regarding the steps be taken in pursuance to removal of the respondent No. 3. The matter was forwarded to the CEO by the Deputy Registrar on 04.02.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative, District Guna on 13.08.2019 setting aside all the proceedings which have been initiated by the governing body on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the respondents No. 3 and has directed for reinstatement of respondent No. 3 in the services, the challenge is further made on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner was having no jurisdiction to interfere the orders passed by the governing body. It is only the domain of the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act 1960. Being the competent authority is having a jurisdiction to deal with such orders. The relevant provisions of Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act is required to be seen:- "Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees." 5. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not availed the remedy under the law by raising a dispute under Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act before the Registrar and by political into the matter has got set aside the resolution of the governing body which is not permissible. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 6. He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 6. Learned Pane Lawyer for the State has submitted that the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2019 whereby the respondent No. 3 has been reinstated in service on the post of Manager of the petitioner society and in place of existing Manager i.e. Vishal Kirar, whereas respondent No. 3 was earlier terminated from the said post due to serious allegations and without following any due process of law and without following any Rules and Procedure, service of respondent No. 3 has been reinstated by respondent No. 2 in thorough arbitrary manner and without jurisdiction, which directly curtails the right of petitioner society, therefore, legal right of the petitioner society has been curtailed, not only this initially concerning Governing Body of society has terminated respondent No. 3 on 30.03.2018 and the present matter, respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order arbitrarily and illegally under the undue pressure of Local MLA and Minister which shows the malice or respondent No. 2, so on such reason, the petitioner is seeking quashment of impugned order. Before adverting to the facts of the case, the petitioner society has no right to challenge the impugned order just under the influence of Manager Vishal Kirar, who did not come before this Hon'ble Court by filing writ petition because the society has no right do discard the direction of superior authority which has been given under Section 53(b) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 wherein the Registrar, Cooperative Society ha ample power to remove the officer of a society, so in such circumstances, the petitioner can not say that Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Society was having no authority to reinstate the respondent No. 3. In view of preliminary submissions, there is no need to file detailed parawise reply. Once the petitioner society is not entitled to get any relief from this Hon'ble Court and just under the influence of New Manager Vishal Kirar, petitioner society has filed present petition, which is misconceived and not maintainable. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, baseless and devoid of any substances, hence the same deserves to be with heavy costs. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, present petition filed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived, baseless and devoid of any substances, hence the same deserves to be with heavy costs. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, by a filing a return, has vehemently opposed the petition and has argued that efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner. He has raised the question with respect to the locus of the petitioner to file the present petition. It is argued that the order impugned could have been challenged by the person who is currently holding the post and he is not even the party to the proceedings. It is seen from the record that the resolution was taken by the governing body of the society to remove the petitioner, the petition is being preferred on the basis of society through Administrator and President. In such circumstances, once a decision is being taken by the society in its governing body meeting then the society is having a right to challenge the order of reinstatement which is obtained without following the procedure prescribed under the Cooperative Societies Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner is having a locus to file the present petition. As far as the ground of alternative remedy is concerned, Section 78 of the Cooperative Societies Act clearly says and provides that in case an order passed under the proceedings initiated under Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 by the Registrar order and then remedy of second appeal is available but in the present case counsel for the respondents could not point out any document to demonstrate the fact that any proceedings were initiated by him challenging the resolution of the governing body by which his services have been terminated. On the contrary, the record shows that the entire exercise is being done on the basis of letter written by the Local M.L.A.. In absence of any proceedings under Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act initiated by the respondent No. 3 against the termination order no remedy is available to the petitioner except to approach before the Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstances, the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In such circumstances, the petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, admittedly the services of the respondent No. 3 were terminated by the general body meeting by way of resolution. As per the Cooperative Societies Act Section 55(2) clearly provides which is as under:- "Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees." 9. The respondent No. 3 has not challenged the resolution dated 13.03.2018 passed in general body meeting, whereby the services of the respondent No. 3 were decided to be terminated or on the contrary he has approached the local MLA who has written the letter to the Deputy Registrar on 30.01.2019 which is (Annexure P/7). The letter reads as under: Áfr] mi&iathd lgdkjh laLFkk;s ftyk&xquk e-Á- fo"k;&y?kq ou mit lgdkjh laLFkk }kjk in ls gVk;s tkus ckcr~A mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd Jh vrhd dqjsZ'kh y?kq ou mit lgdkjh lfefr Qrsgx<+ dk vkosnu i= ewyr% layXu gSA ftlesa mYys[k fd;k gS fd y?kq on mit lgdkjh laLFkk }kjk o"kZ 1997 esa bUgsa in ls i`Fkd dj fn;k FkkA ,oa Qjojh&2018 ls bUgsa osru ÁkIr ugha gqvk gS vr% bl laca/k esa budk osru Hkqxrku djus ,oa mDr Ádj.k dh tkap djkbZ tkdj fd xbZ dk;Zokgh ls 'kh?kz voxr djk;sA ¼egsUnz flag fllkSfn;k½ 10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 was put a specific query by this Court with respect to any proceedings being taken up by him in pursuance to Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 was put a specific query by this Court with respect to any proceedings being taken up by him in pursuance to Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act. After arguing for sometime, he fairly admits the fact that no such proceedings have been initiated by him, rather it is pointed out that against the termination order, representation was submitted by him to the Commissioner and on the inquiry being conducted into the matter, the proceedings done by the governing body terminating the services of the petitioner were found to be not in accordance with law and on the basis of the inquiry report, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the proceedings and directing for reinstatement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has placed reliance the judgment passed in the Rajendra Vipnan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. Harcharan Kada and Another, 1994 MPLJ 851 . 11. Section 55(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is required to be seen:- "Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees." 12. From bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is apparently clear that in case any dispute for any orders passed by the governing body like that in the case of respondent No. 3 the remedy available was to raise the dispute with under Section 55(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act 1960 before the Registrar. The Registrar being the competent authority to deal with such orders and the Deputy Commissioner was having no authority to deal with such orders. Even otherwise from the record, it is seen that the order impugned passed is on the basis of the letter written by the M.L.A. and an inquiry being conducted behind the back of the petitioner and on the basis of inquiry report submitted to the Commissioner, the impugned order has been passed. The fact remains that no proper procedure has been followed by the respondent No. 3 to challenge the termination order before the Competent Authority. The fact remains that no proper procedure has been followed by the respondent No. 3 to challenge the termination order before the Competent Authority. In such circumstances, the order impugned is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. 13. However, the liberty is extended to the respondent No. 3 to raise a dispute before the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act if he so desires. 14. The petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations. Certified copy as per rules.