ORDER : 1. By way of filing present writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(a). That the impugned order dated 04/07/2023 Annex.16 passed by the Additional Registrar, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur for dissolution of Board of Society and appointment of Administrator be declared illegal and the same be quashed and set aside. (b). That any order passed in pursuant to order dated 04/07/2023 during the pendency of this writ petition may also be quashed and set aside.” 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner is Chairman of Yogeshwar Grah Nirman Co-operative Society Ltd., Sirohi. The Yogeshwar Grah Nirman Co-operative Society Ltd., Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’) is registered cooperative Society under the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 having registration No.403/W/dated 17/09/2019. 3. The Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur (hereinafter ‘respondent No.2’) served the Society with a notice dated 12.01.2023 under Section 30(1)(b), as per the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2001’). In the notice dated 12.01.2023, it was stated that the office of Co-operative Minister, Rajasthan, Jaipur received letters/ complaints from one Kanchan Devi, Sandeep, Nitesh and other plot holders against the Society alleging that the members of the Management Committee and Chairman are working against the interest of the Society. The office of respondent No.2 whereupon, conducted a preliminary inquiry (through Dalpat Dan Charan) against the Society and found that the Management Committee of the Society is not adhering to the provisions of the by-laws of the Society in grant and removal of the membership in the Society. Therefore, proceedings for dissolution of the Board of the Society had been proposed under Section 30 of the Act of 2001 and FIR had also been recommended against the Chairman, Managing Committee and Manager of the Society as they prepared forged documents. Respondent No.2 vide notice dated 12.01.2023 directed Chairman and members of the Managing Committee to submit their explanation upto 2 pm, on 30.01.2023. 4. A reply to the notice dated 12.01.2023 was submitted on 25.01.2023 by the petitioner and other members stating inter alia that the copies of the complaint and inquiry report may be provided so as to enable the petitioner and other members of the Society, to file explanation of the notice dated 12.01.2023. 5. 4. A reply to the notice dated 12.01.2023 was submitted on 25.01.2023 by the petitioner and other members stating inter alia that the copies of the complaint and inquiry report may be provided so as to enable the petitioner and other members of the Society, to file explanation of the notice dated 12.01.2023. 5. In the writ petition, it has been averred that the petitioner and other members of the Society did not receive any document as demanded vide reply dated 25.01.2023. A representation therefore, was submitted by the petitioner before Hon’ble Chief Minister and Hon’ble Co-operative Minister dated 10.02.2023 for conducting de-novo inquiry by appointing new inquiry officer, thereupon, one Uday Deep Singh Rathore (hereinafter referred to as ‘second inquiry officer’) was appointed as an inquiry officer vide order dated 20.02.2023 of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, Jaipur. The petitioner was directed to appear before second inquiry officer on 17.03.2023 to participate in the inquiry vide communication dated 09.03.2023. 6. A detailed reply dated 08.05.2023 was submitted by the petitioner to the inquiry officer stating that the complaint submitted by the complainant is bereft of any merit and the membership had been given to all eligible persons by following the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and by-laws of the Society. The petitioner came to be served with an order dated 04.07.2023 issued by respondent No.2 as per the provision of Section 30(1)(b) of Act of 2001, whereby the Management Committee of the Society was dissolved/removed and one Ram Sukh Choudhary, Deputy Registrar cum Secretary, Primary Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Bilara, Jodhpur was appointed as an Administrator of the Society. 7. Challenging the validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 04.07.2023 issued by respondent No.2, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 04.07.2023 has been issued in violation of Section 30(1)(c) of the Act of 2001 which clearly states that the powers under Section 30 of the Act of 2001 for removal of Management Committee or member thereof, can be exercised only after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Society or its Management Committee. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2 after receiving a report of the second inquiry officer purportedly dated 22.06.2023, neither supplied the petitioner or any other members of the Managing Committe a copy of the inquiry report nor extended any opportunity of hearing to them. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent No.2 after receiving a report of the second inquiry officer purportedly dated 22.06.2023, neither supplied the petitioner or any other members of the Managing Committe a copy of the inquiry report nor extended any opportunity of hearing to them. Learned counsel submitted that the action of respondent No.2 is in gross violation of Section 30 (1)(c) of the Act of 2001 and the same is also in violation of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel thus prayed that the writ petition preferred by him may be allowed and impugned order dated 04.07.2023 (Annex.16), issued by respondent No.2 may be quashed and set aside. 9. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Geeta Patel (Smt.) vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (2) RLW (Raj) 1259. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 while opposing the submissions made before this Court on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, raised following arguments:- 1. That the Managing Committee of the Society was elected on 06.08.2018 and one Shri Jethu Singh was elected as Chairman of the Society, however, by way of Annual General Meeting dated 25.01.2021, the petitioner was nominated as Chairman of the Society which is contrary to Rule 45 (3)(1) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003 (for short ‘Rules of 2003’). 2. On receiving complaint of Kanchan Devi, Sandeep, Nitesh and others from the office of the Co-operative Minister, respondent No.2 conducted a preliminary inquiry through one Dalpat Dan Charan. The report from Dalpat Dan Charan (inquiry officer) dated 09.01.2023 was received wherein, it was recommended that Management Committee may be dissolved looking to the irregularities committed by it. The petitioner and other members of the Management Committee however, objected to the same and on their representation, a new inquiry officer Uday Deep Singh Rathore i.e. second inquiry officer was appointed, who had submitted inquiry report on 22.06.2023 and on at least ten points had concluded that the Society was not adhering to various rules and by-laws of the Society and further, various irregularities were noticed in its functioning. Further, the Management Committee/ Elected Committee was working against the interests of Society. 3. The term of Management Committee/ Elected Committee had come to end on 05.08.2023. Further, the Management Committee/ Elected Committee was working against the interests of Society. 3. The term of Management Committee/ Elected Committee had come to end on 05.08.2023. The State Rajasthan Cooperative authority had issued an order dated 31.07.2023 for conducting elections of the Society. Thus, in light of the aforesaid development, when the term of the Society had come to an end, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner has become infructous and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Badrinarain Sharma vs. State being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9132/2023. 4. The petitioner is having an alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal as per provisions of Section 105 (10)(a) of the Act of 2001. The objection with regard to impugned order dated 04.07.2023 having been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner can be agitated in the statutory appeal and the same cannot be made a ground to bypass the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner. Reliance was placed on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sushila vs. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.823/2022), decided on 17.03.2023. 11. On these grounds, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. Section 30 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 to the extent that is relevant for resolving the controversy in hand is reproduced below for ready reference:- 30. Removal of Committee or Member thereof. - (1) Where - (a) the committee of a co-operative society - (i) persistently makes default; or (ii) is negligent in the performance of its duties imposed on it by this Act or the rules or the bye-laws; or (iii) commits any act prejudicial to the interest of the society or its members; or (b) there is stalemate in the constitution or functions of the committee. (c) the term of existing committee has expired and the State Co-operative Election Authority has failed to conduct elections for a new committee in accordance with the provisions of this act or Rules made thereunder, the Zonal Registrar, in case of primary society, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Rajasthan, in case of central society and the State Government, in case of an apex society may, after giving the committee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, remove the committee and appoint a government servant as an Administrator to manage the affairs of the society or a period not extending six months: Provided that the committee of a society not to be superseded where there is no Government share holding or loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by the Government. Provided that in the case of a cooperative society carrying on the business of banking, the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 shall also apply. (2)… (3)… (emphasis supplied)” 14. The term ‘reasonable opportunity’ has been explained and interpreted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Khemchand vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC 300 , in the context of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India which reads as under:- “To summarise: the reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes- (a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the government servant.” 15. In the case of Geeta Patel (supra), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has explained the term ‘reasonable opportunity’ in the context of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, in the following manner:- “Having considered the terms 'reasonable' and 'reasonable opportunity' as above, it can be said that under the administrative law the doctrine of reasonable opportunity is an objective mode to adjudicate a disputed issue and that demands a fair, proper, moderate and satisfactory opportunity to the person effected to place his version of facts before the authority competent to decide the issue or to take penal action and further that the competent authority should consider such version of the effected person without any bias, prejudice or on extraneous factor, and while doing so, as far as possible an opportunity of personal hearing should also be given. The objective consideration includes the duty of supporting findings by reasons. As already stated, a cooperative society is a body created under a law which is required to be governed in consonance with provisions of part-IXB of the Constitution of India with the endeavour of the State to protect its autonomy, democratic control and professional than the body authorised to administer the society. Under Section 30 of the Act of 2001 the Registrar is having authority to remove a committee of a cooperative society or any member of such committee in prescribed eventualities by extending reasonable opportunity to state objections. Whether the opportunity given is reasonable or not, that is to be seen by examining facts of the case and while doing so, the prime consideration is fairness, objectivity, the reasons given to invoke exceptional power in addition to comfort and convenience of the person affected. These ingredients are required as the phrase used in the statute is not 'opportunity' but 'reasonable opportunity'. The calling of explanation or objection would have been sufficient if the term used in the statute would have been 'opportunity to state objection'. But, use of term 'reasonable' puts a burden upon the authority competent to have something more than just calling objection. The legislature has used the word 'reasonable' with a view to provide all possible chance to the person concerned to defend him/her. This one is a statutory protection given to the cooperative societies to ensure their autonomous and democratic status and also social welfare catalyst role. The legislature has used the word 'reasonable' with a view to provide all possible chance to the person concerned to defend him/her. This one is a statutory protection given to the cooperative societies to ensure their autonomous and democratic status and also social welfare catalyst role. While discharging such an important and exceptional duty, the authority competent is also required to satisfy himself that whatever action he is taking is in complete compliance of the law and further by keeping in mind that his decision would affect a body whose autonomy and democratic functioning is required to be maintained as a constitutional mandate.” 16. The respondents in their reply have taken the stand that the second inquiry officer (Uday Deep Singh Rathore) had provided all the relevant material to the petitioner including the first inquiry report dated 09.01.2023. The Rajasthan Co-operative Act and Rules do not contemplate opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party. The petitioner despite ample opportunities did not appear before second inquiry officer. The inquiry officer had completed the inquiry in accordance with law and respondent No.2 after receiving the inquiry report had come to the conclusion that Management Committee/ Elected Committee was working against the interests of the Society and therefore, vide impugned order dated 04.07.2023 the Management Committee of the Society was dissolved. 17. This Court in view of aforesaid reply has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that before passing the impugned order 04.07.2023 as per the provision of Section 30(1)(b) of Act of 2001 and Rule 36 of the Rules of 2003, neither inquiry report dated 22.06.2023 submitted by second inquiry officer nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the present petitioner or any of the members of the Management Committee. 18. The principles of natural justice which mandates statutory authorities to provide an opportunity of hearing/ defending to affected person-party before any administrative, judicial or quasi judicial action is taken have been violated in the present case. It is a settled law that principles of natural justice are not mere legal formalities but constitute obligation which needs to be followed by the decision making and adjudicating authorities. 19. Since, this Court finds wholesale violation of principles of natural justice and non-adherence of Section 30 (1)(c) of the Act of 2001, this Court is not inclined to relegate the aggrieved petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy. 19. Since, this Court finds wholesale violation of principles of natural justice and non-adherence of Section 30 (1)(c) of the Act of 2001, this Court is not inclined to relegate the aggrieved petitioner to avail the alternative statutory remedy. It is a settled law that the powers conferred upon High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary in nature and therefore, does not debar the Court from granting appropriate relief after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case notwithstanding the existence of alternative remedy. 20. In wake of discussion made herein above and having come to a definite conclusion that the order impugned dated 04.07.2023 was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Chairman and Management Committee of the Yogeshwar Grah Nirman Co-operative Society Ltd., Sirohi before its dissolution, is in violation of Section 30(1)(c) of the Act of 2001, the same is therefore, quashed and set aside. 21. This Court has been informed that though the term of the Society has expired but still, new elections have not taken place. No statutory provision under the Act of 2001 or Rules of 2003 was cited before this Court which mandates that when the term of the Management Committee/ Elected Committee expires and new elections are declared, the existing Management Committee/ Elected Committee will itself lose its life/ cease to exist or the same would not work/ function till new elections of Management Committee to manage the affairs of the Society are held. 22. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is directed that the petitioner and the Management Committee shall be allowed to function till new elections are conducted or any other order in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 and Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 2003 is passed in this regard. 23. In the result, the instant civil writ petition stands allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.