Gokulakrishnan, Offg. C.J.
1. The appellant filed a writ petition for the issue of a certiorari calling for the records of the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras 1, in Rc.No. 65240/80/G3/7 dated 31-12-1980, and for quashing the same, There is a further prayer to the effect that this court must direct the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, Madras to hold fresh elections to the 8th respondent society in the affidavit filed in support of W. M. P. 2231 and 2232 of 1981, the appellant herein has alleged that the order of the first respondent herein is motivated due to influence exercised by the party in power, that any revision or appeal preferred to the 9th respondent State Government will result in delay and that in the meantime the arbitrary illegal and motivated order will work itself out. Nainar Sundaram J. who disposed of the writ petition, observed that there is an alternative remedy available for the appellant herein under Sec. 97 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act (53 of 1961) and that there was no justification to by-pass the statutory remedy available to the appellant in this view the learned Judge dismissed the writ Petition. It is against this order the present writ appeal has been filed.
2. The appellant questions the correctness of the order passed by the first respondent herein in Re. No. 65240/G3/7 dated 31-12-1980. By this proceeding the first respondent herein nominated seven persons to be Board of Directors of the Kancheepuram Perunthalaivar Kammarai Silk Weavers Co-operative Society, Kancheepuram, for a period of one year from 1-1-1981 to 31-12-1981. By-law 20 (a) framed by the Society under the powers conferred upon it by the second proviso to Sec. 27 (1) of the Act states-
'Notwithstanding anything contained in this by-law the Board of Directors ncluding the President and the Vice President shall be nominated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Madras for a period of five years.
Relying on this by-law the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Government has powers to nominate directors only for a period of five years, that the period of five years ha s come to an end by 1979 and that therefore the nomination of directors in 1980 for 1981 for a period of one year is contrary to the by-law made by the Society. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that Sec. 97 of to Act is not applicable to this case, be cause the by-law by which the first vespondent nominated directors will not be under the powers conferred by the Act or the rules made thereunder that it is only when the first respondent acts under the provisions of the Act and the rules framed there under, that Sec. 97 could be invoked and that, as such, the appellant's remedv is only to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. We are unable to accept this contention.
Section 97 of the Act clearly states that the Registrar may, of his own motion, or on application, call for and examine the record of any officer subordinate to him and the Government may of their own motion or on application call for and examine the record of the Registrar, in respect of any proceeding etc. The expression any proceeding, occurring in Sec. 97 will definitely take in the present proceeding of the first respondent herein. Apart from the fact that we cannot give a narrow meaning to the by-laws framed by virtue of the powers conferred by the second proviso to Sec. 27 (1) of the Act, the proceeding in question will come within the purview of Sec. 97 of the Act. The Government has definitely Power to revise the orders of the Registrar who is the first respondent herein and the proceedings by which the first respondent nominated the present directors will squarely come under the expression 'any proceeding, occurring in Sec. 97 of the Act.
Thus there is an effective alternative remedy available to the appellant herein by way of a revision to the Government. It is now stated before us that the appellant has already preferred a revision petition to the Government and that, since the appellant is afraid that the Government may delay the matter till the period for the nominated directors is over, he has come forward with the present writ petition it is desirable that the Government takes up this revision petition alleged to have been filed by the appellant herein at an early date and dispose it of on merits without any delay. With these observations the writ appeal is dismissed.
3. Appeal dismissed.