Cheriyan Mathew v Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission & Others (W.A.No.311 of 2020)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **TUESDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1943** **WA NO. 311 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.2.2020 IN WP(C)No.3031/2020** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **CHERIYAN MATHEW, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, MEMBERSHIP NO.7984** **THE KANAKKARY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3831, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL HOUSE, VEMPALLY P.O, MURAVILANGAD VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION 3RD FLOOR, CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY** - **2 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 577.** - **3 THE RETURNING OFFICER/ THE OFFICE INSPECTOR, ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MEENACHIL, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 577.** W.A.No.311 of 2020 2 - **4 THE KANAKKARY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3831, VEMPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 633 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **5 THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, THE KANAKKARY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3831, VEMPALLY P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 633.** - **6 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE 686 601** **BY ADVS.SRI.R LAKSHMI NARAYANAN(BY ORDER) SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SRI.ATHUL SHAJI SPL.G.P.SRI.MOHAMAD HASHIM** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A.No.311 of 2020 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Ravikumar, J.** This is an intra-court appeal filed against the judgment dated 17.2.2020 in W.P.(C)No.3031 of 2020. The appellant/writ petitioner is a member of Kanakkary Service Co-operative Bank Limited No.3831, Vempally, the 4[th] respondent herein and he was its former President. Prior to the expiry of the term of office of its previous committee a meeting was convened and it was resolved to conduct election to the Managing Committee of the society on 27.10.2019. Though the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 7.9.2019 to conduct election to the Managing Committee of the 4[th] respondent the same was cancelled by issuing another notification on the date fixed for submission of nomination. The petitioner challenged the notification cancelling the election notification dated 7.9.2019 in W.P.(C)No.27793 of 2019. However, during its pendency, the term of the previous committee had expired on 1.11.2019 and consequently, as per Ext.P1 judgment the said writ petition was disposed of with directions to the Joint Registrar to constitute an Administrative Committee and, in turn, to take a decision to conduct election to the Managing Committee. Consequent to the W.A.No.311 of 2020 4 compliance with the said directions the Election Commission issued fresh notification dated 13.1.2020 fixing the date of election as 23.2.2020. Going by its schedule the preliminary list of voters was to be published on 20.1.2020. Accordingly, it was published containing the names of 12795 members. The appellant and some members of the society raised objections against the inclusion of 1271 members in the voters’ list contending that they ceased to be members of the society and therefore, ineligible to be included as voters. 2. The contention of their ineligibility to be voters in the election was raised based on an amendment to the bye-laws of the society. The share value of 'A' class membership was enhanced from Rs.10/- to Rs.100/- and as per the amended clause 17 of the bye-laws the differential share value has to be remitted within 6 months from the date of registration of the amendment of the bye-laws. The amendment to the bye-laws got the approval of the Joint Registrar on 17.12.2015 and therefore, those who remitted the differential share value on or before 16.6.2016 alone could sustain their 'A' class membership, was the foundation for the aforesaid contention. The case of the appellant is that the 2[nd] respondent-Electoral Officer did not consider the objection appropriately and then, published the final list of voters on 29.1.2020 with those 1271 persons as well. It is in the said circumstances that W.A.No.311 of 2020 5 seeking quashment of Ext.P5 preliminary list of voters' list and Ext.P9 final list of voters and such other consequential reliefs, the writ petition was filed. 3. The 4[th] respondent society filed a counter affidavit and the 2[nd] respondent-Electoral Officer filed a statement, in the writ proceedings. Crux of the contentions raised to resist the appellant’s case was that the previous Managing Committee decided to remove 7749 members as per Ext.R4(a) resolution No.2017 dated 12.7.2019 on their failure to remit the differential share value for retaining membership within 6 months and even within the extended time viz., till 16.6.2019. On the complaint of some of the aggrieved members, after getting a report from the Assistant Registrar and hearing the affected parties, invoking the power under Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (for short 'KCS Rules') Ext.R4(a) resolution was rescinded by the Joint Registrar as per Ext.R4(b) order bearing No.JRGKTM/6090/2019-CRP1 dated 19.12.2019. It is further stated in the said counter affidavit that 1235 members have paid the differential share value 60 days prior to the notified date of election and thus, restored their 'A' class membership and therefore, included in the preliminary list of voters. As relates another 36 persons, it is stated that they were enrolled by the previous Managing Committee after the W.A.No.311 of 2020 6 commencement of the earlier election process culminated in the cancelled election notification dated 7.9.2019 and therefore, they were also included in the preliminary list of voters as they became members 60 days prior to the new date notified for election. Thus, raising such contentions the 4[th] and 6[th] respondents resisted the challenge of the appellant against Ext.P5 preliminary list of voters and Ext.P9 final list of voters. 4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel and considering the rival contentions passed the impugned judgment. A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned Single judge has considered the challenge against the eligibility of 1271 persons to be included in Ext.P5 preliminary list of voters and Ext.P9 final list of voters. After upholding their eligibility for inclusion in the preliminary and final lists of voters the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. In the decision in **Gopalan** v. **Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies (1985 KLT 446)** this Court held that a Co-operative Society is also a relevant democratic institution functioning at a grass root level. In that matter the court should be anxious to ensure that proper functioning of the democratic institution is not interfered with. Futhermore, it was held that those considerations have to be persuaded W.A.No.311 of 2020 7 to exercise the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the decision in **V.R.Krishnan Ezhuthachan** v. **Asst. Registrar (1990(1) KLT 695)** this Court held that the Court would not ordinarily entertain an original petition at the intermediate stage in an election process, but this is a rule of discretion and not one of absolute bar in law. Despite the lapse of decades since such pronouncements the said positions thus settled, virtually continue. Hence, we do not think it necessary to burden thus judgment with more authorities on those aspects. 6. The facts explained earlier would reveal that the term of the Managing Committee of the 4[th] respondent society had expired on 1.11.2019. Prior to the expiry of the term the previous committee convened a meeting and resolved to conduct election to the Managing Committee on 27.10.2019. Though the Election Commission issued notification dated 7.9.2019 to conduct election it had to issue another notification, on the date fixed for submission of nomination, to cancel the election notification dated 7.9.2019. In fact, it constrained to cancel the said notification owing to a fatal error occurred on it. The petitioner’s unsuccessful challenge against the notification cancelling the said election notification in W.P.(C)No.27793 of 2019 culminated in directions to the Joint Registrar to constitute an Administrative W.A.No.311 of 2020 8 Committee and, in turn, to take a decision to conduct election to the Managing Committee. Fresh notification dated 13.1.2020 fixing the date of election as 23.2.2020 came to be issued in the said circumstances. Impediments for the smooth conduct of the election based on it started again with the publication of Ext.P5 preliminary list of voters. The appellant herein and some other members of the society challenged the inclusion of 1271 persons in the preliminary list of voters and obviously, their objection based on amendments to the bye-laws and alleged, consequential failure on the part of those persons to remit the enhanced share value to earn eligibility to be included in the preliminary list voters was over-ruled by the Electoral Officer. When this be the situation at the time of filing of the writ petition ordinarily, the jurisdiction would have been declined. But then, as held in **Krishnan Ezhuthachan’s** case (supra) it is only a rule of discretion and not one of absolute bar in law. Hence, when the discretion was exercised by the learned Single Judge that issue is not to be looked into. Even then, in an intra-court appeal when the judgment in a writ petition is challenged this Court has to consider whether appellate interference is, otherwise called for. 7. In ground ‘D’ of the appeal the appellant has taken up a contention as hereunder:- W.A.No.311 of 2020 9 “ …………….The election to the managing committee is scheduled on 23.2.2020. The secretary of the society has taken a stand before the learned single judge that all the said 1271 members remitted the differential share value between 19.12.2019 and 22.12.2019. The said stand was taken without any substantiation. Even in the counter affidavit, no documents are seen produced to substantiate the same. ………..The single judge merely placing reliance on the submissions of the secretary of the society, who was the brain behind derailing of the previous election scheduled in the year 2019, dismissed the writ petition.” On 20.2.2020 this Court admitted the appeal and passed an interim order taking note of the nature of the contentions in the appeal and also of the fact that the challenge is against the enfranchisement of 1271 persons included in the preliminary and final lists of voters. It was ordered that persons, whose names were included in the final voters' list, based on which election was scheduled to be held on 27.10.2019 and 1271 persons who were subsequently enfranchised, shall be permitted to cast their votes only in separate ballot boxes. It was further ordered that votes cast by the aforesaid two categories shall be counted separately, after the polling. Furthermore it was ordered thus:- “ ...............After counting the votes in the aforesaid manner, the results shall be produced before this Court in a sealed cover. In other words, results shall be published only after obtaining orders from this Court.” After the election the results were produced before this Court. W.A.No.311 of 2020 10 8. Now, we will consider the rival contentions necessary for the disposal of the appeal. A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment would reveal that the learned Single Judge considered the contention of the appellant that Ext.P1 itself is vitiated as the first respondent had proceeded with consideration against Ext.R4(a) resolution on the assumption that there was no registered notice issued to the defaulted members, including 1271 persons in question prior to the cancellation of their memberships in the society. We find that the learned Single Judge, evidently, had the opportunity to peruse the files made available and held that they would go to show that such notices were issued only to call upon them to pay the differential share value, within the stipulated time limit and also to caution that in case of failure their shares would be transferred to the reserved fund. The learned Single Judge found that there is absolutely no mention in those notices in respect of any proposal for cancellation of their memberships in the society. Despite our careful scanning of the grounds raised in the writ appeal we do not find any contention challenging its correctness. In fact, no document whatsoever, to prove that it is a mistaken or incorrect conclusion was produced before us. That apart, the very contention of the appellant raised relying ‘useless formality theory’ based on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in **Aligarh Muslim** W.A.No.311 of 2020 11 ## **University and Others** v. **Mansoor Ali Khan [(2000) 7 SCC 529]** , that they were not entitled to the right of hearing before cancellation of membership, itself would reveal that they did not dispute the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Ergo, we also do not find any illegality in the action of the writ court in holding that it would be safe to presume that the first respondent vide Ext.R4(b) rescinded Ext.R4(a) resolution owing to absence of notice to the 1271 members prior to the cancellation of their memberships. 9. However, we are of the considered view that consideration of certain other aspects are also inevitable to dispose of this appeal. In the interim order dated 20.2.2020 carrying directions for the conduct of election on 27.10.2019 we have ordered that those persons whose names were included in the final voters' list, based on which election was scheduled to be held on 27.10.2019 and the 1271 persons who were subsequently enfranchised and additionally included in the final list of voters subsequently prepared, shall be permitted to cast votes only in separate ballot boxes. Such a direction was issued taking note of various contentions raised by the parties. Relying on various authorities it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that since the election originally fixed to be held on 27.10.2019 as per notification dated 7.9.2019 was cancelled W.A.No.311 of 2020 12 only after the preparation of final list of voters, in terms of the schedule and on the date for filing of nominations, that too, solely on the ground of a fatal error occurred in the said notification, the entire election processes were not required to be redone and it should have been continued only from the stage where it was stopped. At any rate, the final list of voters prepared for conducting election on 27.10.2019 should have been the basis for election to the Managing Committee for the election fixed on 23.2.2020. That apart, we have, virtually noted the specific contention of the appellant in Ground ‘D’ of the appeal, as well. It is pertaining to the stand taken by the Secretary of the society that all the said 1271 members remitted the differential share value between 19.12.2019 and 22.12.2019. In this context, it is also to be noted that the contention of the appellant wais that even if it is true, the mere factum of paying/remitting the differential share value, by itself, would not fetch eligibility for being a voter in the election decided to be held on 23.2.2020 to those 1271 persons. In view of prayer No. (ii) in the writ petition the appellant cannot be heard to contend that he is disputing the factum of remittance of the differential share value by those persons. But then, he is justified in contending that though such a stand was taken by the Secretary of the Bank no material whatsoever was produced by him to substantiate his stand and that the learned W.A.No.311 of 2020 13 Single Judge merely placed reliance on the submissions of the Secretary, in that matter. Even if it can be taken that payment of the differential share value 60 days prior to the date of polling would automatically fetch those 1271 persons voting right in the said election, the question is what is there to establish that they had actually paid the differential share value 60 days prior to the date of polling. No documents are seen produced in the writ proceedings or in this proceedings to ascertain the true position in this regard. It pertains to the case of 1271 persons. We do not find the basis or materials for taking the said stand of the Secretary as the admitted position as held in the impugned judgment. We are not oblivious of the rival contention that the appellant have not challenged the fresh election notification based on which election was held on 23.2.2020, based on the order of this Court 20.2.2020. That apart, the respondents have also taken up a contention that though the appellant challenges the right of 1271 members of the society to vote in the election held on 23.2.2020 despite the fact their names were included in the preliminary as also in the final, lists of voters prepared for conducting the election on 23.2.2020, none of them was made a party to the writ petition and also in the writ appeal. According to them on that sole score the appeal is liable to fail. W.A.No.311 of 2020 14 10. In the context of the rival contentions it is relevant to refer to the statement dated 3.3.2020 filed by the counsel for the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission. Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said statement are noteworthy for the purpose of disposal of this appeal and they read thus:- "2. It is submitted that 5289 votes have been polled, out of which 527 have been cast in special booth as directed by this Hon'ble Court. The tabulation of votes obtained by each candidates is elaborated is produced herewith and marked as **Annexure R1(a).** 3. The list of candidates who will have to be declared as elected if the votes cast in the special booth are counted, is produced herewith and marked as **Annexure R1(b).** The list of candidates who will have to be declared as elected if the votes cast in the special booth are not counted, is produced herewith and **-** marked as **Annexure R1(c).** 4. The sealed cover containing the tabulation of votes obtained by each candidate has been already submitted before this Hon'ble Court on 26.2.2020. This statement is filed to explain the possible outcome of the election depending on inclusion/exclusion of the votes cast in the special booth." 11. It is a fact that borne out from the statement that in the election held on 23.2.2020 only 527 persons from out of the aforesaid 1271 persons have cast votes. It appears that paragraph 2 of the statement dated 3.3.2020 got much relevance, in the contextual situation. A perusal of Annexure-R1(b), marked as such in the said W.A.No.311 of 2020 15 statement, which is the list of candidates liable to be declared as elected if the said 527 votes are not to be counted and AnnexureR1(c), marked as such in the said statement, which is the list of candidates liable to be declared as elected if the said 527 votes are also to be counted, would reveal that inclusion/exclusion of the votes cast by those 527 persons is a decisive factor as relates the outcome of the election. True that, the said statement is filed only to explain the possible outcome depending on the inclusion/exclusion of those 527 votes. 12. Taking note of the rival contentions as noted hereinbefore and the relevant issues that call for a rightful decision in the matter, we have no hesitation to say that it requires careful examination of various documents and registers kept in the society. In other words, a process of taking evidence is required in that regard. That apart, when an election process had commenced and members are included in the final voters list, this Court would make an effort to adjudicate on the right or otherwise of such members in a writ petition, only in exceptional circumstances. If the consideration is to involve a process of taking evidence, then this Court would decline the jurisdiction. After taking note of the contentions and issues to be resolved we are of the considered view that a mere consideration of the W.A.No.311 of 2020 16 question whether the 1271 persons who were included over and above the members whose names appeared in the final list of voters published for conducting election on 27.10.2019, had paid differential share value 60 days prior to 23.2.2020 alone cannot solve the lis involved in the case on hand. As noticed earlier, even in respect of the said issue the contention of the appellant is that no documents were produced by the Bank to establish the dates on which those persons paid the differential share value. Though in the impugned judgment it is stated that there is no dispute regarding the fact that all the 1271 persons have paid the differential share value 60 days prior to 23.2.2020, evidently, the appellant is challenging the said finding. Certainly, no documents are produced to establish the said aspect. That apart it is not discernible from the judgment as to whether documents revealing the said aspect were made available for perusal and whether they were verified. So also, the fact is that the question whether the foundation for fresh election should be the final voters list prepared for conducting election on 27.10.2019 and the question whether payment of the differential share value 60 days prior to 23.2.2020 would automatically make all of them eligible voters, in the facts and circumstances obtained in this case, as mentioned above, were not addressed and answered in the impugned judgment. It is to be noted that the 4[th] respondent has taken W.A.No.311 of 2020 17 up a contention on the aforesaid lines in the counter affidavit. It is also to be noted that the appellant has also taken up a contention that they were not eligible to make differential share value in view of clause 17 of the amended bye-law to sustain their membership. This issue is also not seen considered though available to be considered in view of the materials on record and prayers made by the appellant. Virtually, it is taking note of the nature of all these issues that election fixed on 23.2.2020 was permitted to be conducted by this Court and accordingly, it was conducted. 13. Now, we will have to consider, in the absence of the aforesaid 1271 persons in the array of parties, whether this Court would be justified in continuing with consideration of the appeal on merits when such consideration should inevitably involve the question whether or not those persons were having right to be voters in the election held on 23.2.2020 and whether the votes cast by them can be taken as invalid owing to their disqualification for being voters in the said election. The appellant would contend that hearing those 1271 persons is a useless formality, in the light of the decision in **Aligarh Muslim University's** case (supra), and therefore, the Court can proceed with the consideration in their absence. We find it very difficult to comprehend with the said contention. In **Aligarh Muslim** W.A.No.311 of 2020 18 **University's** case (supra) the Apex Court applied 'useless formality theory' based on the factual situation obtained in that case. It was held that if a person is absent beyond the prescribed period for which leave of any kind can be granted, he should be treated to have resigned and ceased to be in service. Further it was held that in such cases, there is no need to hold an inquiry or to give any notice as it would amount to 'useless formality'. It is also relevant to note that holding that 'useless formality theory', is an exception the Apex Court held that it would not be possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the said principle has to apply and therefore, its applicability depends on the facts of particular case. 14. As noticed hereinbefore, the indisputable fact is that those 1271 persons were 'A' class members in the society when the share value for 'A' class membership was Rs.10/-. It is also an indisputable position that pursuant to the enhancement of share value for 'A' class membership to Rs.100/- those persons have also paid the differential share value. However, from the rival pleadings, one of the issues crops up for consideration is whether the differential share value was paid by them 60 days prior to 23.2.2020. True that, the appellant would contend that even if the said differential share value was paid by all of them within 60 days prior to the 23.2.2020 it would not enable W.A.No.311 of 2020 19 them to sustain their 'A' class membership in view of the amended clause 17 of the bye-laws. We have also noted that the main contention of the appellant is that the electoral roll for election held on 23.2.2020 should be the final list of voters published for conducting the election on 27.10.2019 based on election notification dated 7.9.2019. But, that itself is a question to be decided. If the said contention is not accepted then definitely the question whether the differential share value was paid by all of them within 60 days prior to the 23.2.2020 would assume relevance. A perusal of Section 20 of the KCS Act would reveal that the right to vote is statutorily conferred thereunder though it is not an unfettered right to a member of a society. But, the fact is that if a member is not otherwise disqualified he would be having the right to vote in the election. Such a statutorily conferred right was available to those 1271 persons who were included as voters in the preliminary and final, lists of voters in respect of the election conducted on 23.2.2020, especially in view of the aforesaid circumstances, cannot be decided without them in the array of parties. Going by Section 20 of the KCS Act, a member admitted within 60 days immediately prior to the date of election shall not have the right to vote. The corollary is that if a member was admitted 60 days prior to the date of election, if he is otherwise not disqualified or ineligible to vote, he should be W.A.No.311 of 2020 20 having the right to vote in the election. Therefore, when the question is whether such a member is otherwise qualified or eligible to vote, how can that question be decided without that person in the array of parties. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to uphold the contention of the appellant based on 'useless formality theory'. In the case on hand, though initially the question was whether those 1271 persons are eligible to sustain their 'A' class membership in the society and entitled to retain their inclusion in the final voters' list, after 23.2.2020 when the indisputable fact is that 527 persons from among the said 1271 persons cast their votes in the election held on 23.2.2020, the question regarding the validity of votes cast by them also become a point for adjudication. In the contextual situation, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami** v. **State of Maharashtra and Others (AIR 2001 SC 3982)** has become relevant. In the said decision it was held that preparation of electoral roll is part of the election process and if there is any breach of rule in preparing the electoral roll or there occurred any illegality the same could be called in question after declaration of the result. In that case, the election in question was already held and the result thereof was stayed by the Apex Court. It was in the said circumstances that the Apex Court held that once the result of the election is declared it W.A.No.311 of 2020 21 would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of the returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal. 15. Taking into account all the aforesaid circumstances we do not propose to consider the contentions raised in the appeal on merits and we are of the view that after granting permission to declare the result of the election the appellant can be relegated to avail the remedy under Section 69 of the KCS Act. 16. Pursuant to our order the returning officer produced the result of the election in a sealed cover. In view of the order dated 20.2.2020 the result was not published. The indisputable fact is that the 1271 persons, whose enfranchisement is disputed by the appellant, were all included in the preliminary and final lists of voters prepared for the purpose of conducting election on 23.2.2020. In the said election, out of those 1271 persons only 527 persons have cast their votes. When their names are included in the final list of voters and they cast their votes, we are of the view that taking into account the nature of the issues to be adjudicated it will only be proper to permit declaration of the result of the election by reckoning those 527 votes as well. Permission therefor, is granted to the returning officer and he shall declare the result of the election held to constitute the Managing W.A.No.311 of 2020 22 Committee of the Society forthwith, on receipt of a copy of this judgment. Once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of the returned candidates on all grounds including the question of ineligibility of the above mentioned 527 persons to be voters in the election held on 23.2.2020. However, we make it clear that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the aforementioned 1271 persons including the 527 persons mentioned above were removed from the membership of the society as per Ext.R4(a) resolution was illegal for non-issuance of notice proposing cancellation of their membership in the society and therefore, the action of the Joint Registrar in presenting the said resolution as per Ext.R4(b) is correct and legal, is confirmed. The said question cannot be reagitated. Subject to the above, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge** Sd/- **N.NAGARESH Judge** TKS