1. ' Facts necessary for the disposal of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was posted as Chak Manager in Cooperative Farming Society in Chak No,390/WB, Tehsil and District Lodhran.
2. During the audit for the period from 1-7-1976 to 30-6-1991, it transpired that he had caused loss to the Society to the tune of Rs,1,03,932 and action was recommended by the Auditor against him under sections 22-A and 50-A of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, to make good the loss sustained by the Society.
3. '
2. The case was accordingly sent by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Farming Society, Khanewal to respondent No,2 Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Multan Division,' Multan with powers of Registrar, who vide order dated 1-3-1992, assessed and determined liability of the petitioner to the aforesaid extent and directed him to" make good the said loss sustained by the Society within a period of two months. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed on 17-10-1995 by respondent No,1, Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Cooperative Department, Lahore.
4. ' The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders of, respondents No,1 and No,2 in this Constitutional petition. The petition was opposed by the respondents. :Arguments heard. Writ petition and its annexures perused.
5. ' A perusal of the impugned order passed by respondent No,1 on 17-10-1995 shows that vide the same petitioner's appeal was dismissed as being time-barred.
6. ' It was urged by the petitioner's counsel that on an application in that appeal, delay in filing the appeal had been condoned by the predecessor-in-office of respondent No,I hence respondent No,1 was bound to decide the appeal on merits and the impugned order passed by him dismissing the appeal as time-barred is therefore, without jurisdiction and without lawful authority.
7. ' In support of the above contention neither copy of the application allegedly filed by the petitioner under the Limitation Act nor any order allegedly passed on said application condoning delay in filing the appeal, was produced. Hence the said contention is repelled. It is not denied that the appeal was barred by time hence the impugned order passed by respondent No,1 cannot be deemed as illegal and without jurisdiction.
8. ' Constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked only where law does not provide any other 'adequate and alternate remedy.
9. ' In this case remedy of appeal was provided which was not availed by the petitioner within the time prescribed by law. By filing a time-barred appeal the petitioner cannot be deemed to have availed that remedy.
10. ' Impugned order of respondent No,2 dated 1-3-1992, though appealable yet not appealed against had therefore, attained finality and would be deemed to have been accepted by the petitioner on account of which he had lost his locus standi to file writ petition.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons the constitutional petition is not competent and maintainable, it is accordingly dismissed.