JUDGMENT : The petitioners herein - a Co-operative Society operating under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (‘KCS Act’) and its President - impugn Ext.P4 communication of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, whereby, their applications, styled as a Revision purportedly filed under Section 87 of the ‘KCS Act’, has been found to be non-maintainable; with a corollary direction therein, asking them to approach the Government with a statutory appeal against the assailed Audit Certificate. 2. Sri.M.M.Monaye – learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, his clients have impugned Ext.P4 fortified by Ext.P6 judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court; and argued that, since the Deputy Registrar has not considered the said precedent, his order can only be construed to be vitiated. 3. Sri.M.M.Monaye asserted that, since Section 63(7) of the ‘KCS Act’ render it inescapable that the Director of Co-operative Audit shall be under the control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies – all proceedings issued by him, whether it be a Audit Certificate or otherwise, will axiomatically become amenable to the latter's revisional power under Section 87 thereof. He argued that, in such forensic scenario, the Deputy Registrar could not have issued Ext.P4; and thus prayed that it be set aside. 4. Smt.Mable C.Kurian – learned Senior Government Pleader, in response, submitted that the reliance of the petitioners on Ext.P6 judgment is untenable because, the declarations therein have been modified in Writ Appeal No.288 of 2018, through which, a learned Division Bench of this Court has found the holdings therein, that a revision would lie before the Registrar against the order of the Director of Co-operative Audit, to be incorrect. She argued that, in fact, in similar circumstances and scenario, this Court has already found, in W.P(C)No.8210 of 2019, that a revision against the Audit Certificate before the Registrar is not feasible; and that the remedy of the aggrieved person is to file a statutory Appeal before the Government. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed; pointing out that there would be no prejudice to the petitioners on account of Ext.P4, since their right to approach the Government has been fully reserved in their favour. 5. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed; pointing out that there would be no prejudice to the petitioners on account of Ext.P4, since their right to approach the Government has been fully reserved in their favour. 5. Sri.K.S.Arun Kumar – learned counsel for the 5th respondent, adopted the afore submissions of Smt.Mable C.Kurian and argued that since his client has been a member of the 1st petitioner for more than 45 years he is well versed with its affairs; and hence is in a position to place all germane inputs before the competent Authorities. 6. I have evaluated the afore rival submissions, on the touchstone of the various materials produced and precedents cited. 7. No doubt, in Ext.P6 judgment, a learned Judge of this Court directed the Registrar to consider the revision filed by the petitioner therein against the Audit Certificate issued by the Director of Co- operative Audit, presumably being under the impression that the latter is an Authority within the control of the former as per Section 63(7) of the ‘KCS Act’. However, in Appeal, a learned Division Bench, took the view that a revision petition would lie against an order of the Director of Co-operative Audit only to the Government, in terms of Section 87 of the ‘KCS Act’ and hence left it to the writ petitioner therein to invoke such remedy; with a corollary direction to the Government to deal with it as per law. 8. As rightly argued by the learned Senior Government Pleader, I had an occasion to consider this aspect in W.P(C)No.8210 of 2019, though not in detail, but referring to the same Division Bench judgment; and this Court also left liberty to the petitioner therein to move the Government appropriately, either through a revision or such other method as is statutorily permitted. 9. As far as this case is concerned, the 1st petitioner – Society takes an obdurate stand that the Deputy Registrar ought to have considered the revision and that they could not have been relegated to the Government, through the remedy of Appeal. No doubt, going by the afore precedents, a revision before the Government under Section 87 of the ‘KCS Act’ is also possible; and therefore, the statement in Ext.P4, that the petitioners must invoke the right of Appeal will have to be read down. No doubt, going by the afore precedents, a revision before the Government under Section 87 of the ‘KCS Act’ is also possible; and therefore, the statement in Ext.P4, that the petitioners must invoke the right of Appeal will have to be read down. But, as is obvious, it would be of no real consequence because, only the nomenclature would be different, with the Authority to consider either an Appeal or a revision - as the case may be, being the Government themselves. 10. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P4 does not deserve to be interdicted and that the petitioners must invoke their remedies before the Government as are apposite. In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition without acceding to any of the reliefs sought for; however, granting liberty to the petitioners to move the Government appropriately in any manner that they may deem appropriate under the statutory Scheme; and to enable them to do so, without the burden of the period when this writ petition has been pending before this Court being used against them, I clarify that the period from 08.04.2024 until a certified copy of the this judgment is received, will stand excluded from any such rigour.