THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 19406 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted calling in question the correctness and validity of an order passed on 13.05.2010 by the Deputy Registrar/Divisional Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, exercising the power available to him under Section 60(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’). The competent authority has held that the writ petitioner, who is presently working as Clerk of Suryapet Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society has drawn a sum of Rs.72,000/- in excess of his salary for the period 2007-08 up to January 2009. Similarly, he has also drawn arrears of salary for the year 2007-08 in a sum of Rs.26,000/-. That is how the surcharge proceedings have been finalized by directing the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.98,000/-. I have heard Sri S. Siva Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. Section 60 of the Act empowers the competent authority to initiate proceedings for surcharge, if it emerges in the course of an audit under Section 50 or an enquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Section 52 or Section 53 or during the winding up of a society, that any person who is or was entrusted with the organizational affairs or management of the society has misappropriated or retained any money or other property or has been guilty of breach of trust in relation to society, such person can be surcharged to that extent. The respondent, undoubtedly, put the writ petitioner on notice before passing the impugned order. Principles of natural justice are thus complied with. Section 75 of the Act enabled constitution of Tribunals for purposes of deciding the appeals that might arise from various decisions of the competent authority. Section 76 has provided for an appeal against every order that is passed under Section 60 of the Act, to the aforementioned Tribunal. Since the impugned order is one, which has been passed by the competent Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, an appeal would lie there against to the Cooperative Tribunal of the area concerned. When confronted with this question, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the present case would involve disputes touching upon both facts and law and therefore, this Court is an appropriate forum for deciding the same. It is also further contended that alternative remedy is not a bar generally for entertaining a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner do not merit further consideration. Firstly, when a statute has created an adjudicating body and ensured that it is manned by a Chairman, who is or has been a judicial officer not below the rank of a District Judge, the remedy provided for under the statute is the most efficacious one. Not only the disputed questions of fact, but even the questions of law are capable of being resolved by such a body. When once the statute maker has advisedly created such a forum, it is not proper for the writ Court to entertain a Writ Petition at the first instance. On the other hand, if the remedy of appeal to such a forum is availed properly, it would help in settling the facts, which are at dispute, correctly. Questions of law, if any can subsequently be focused and agitated before the High Court. I, therefore, do not see any reason as to how the writ petitioner can be permitted to bypass the alternative remedy of appeal to the Tribunal, provided for under Section 76 of the Act. It is true that normally availability of an alternative remedy to a writ petitioner will not be construed as a bar for entertaining a Writ Petition, but however, the normal rule that is insisted is for availing such an alternative remedy, particularly when some of the facts are at dispute. Generally, the writ petitions are entertained even without exhausting the alternative remedy where the vires of any statutory provision or rule or regulation is challenged or the very power and jurisdiction of the authority, which passed the impugned order is called in question or in cases of grave miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, the three aforementioned principles for entertaining a Writ Petition, notwithstanding availability of an alternative remedy, are not satisfied. Hence, I see no reason to entertain this Writ Petition and it is dismissed at the stage of admission, as there is an effective alternative remedy available to the writ petitioner. If the writ petitioner seeks return of the original impugned order to enable him to file the same before the Cooperative Tribunal, the registry may return the same, duly keeping a xerox copy thereof on record. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 9th August 2010 ksld