( 1 ) THE petitioners were the members of the managing committee of Una Taluka Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. at Una in Junagadh District (hereinafter referred to as the Sangh for the sake of brevity ). Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were elected as members of the managing committee in September 1972. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as a member in September 1973. The term of office is three years from the date of election. On 24th August 1974 the managing committed of the Sangh passed the impugned resolution resolving that the petitioners had remained absent from three consecutive meetings of the managing committee held on 18 July 1974 23 July 1974 and 15th August 1974 and that therefore their offices had become vacant. The managing committee of the Sangh thereafter co-opted three members in their places.

( 2 ) IT is this resolution which is challenged by the petitioners in this petition.

( 3 ) THE Sangh is governed apart from the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 and the Rules made thereunder by its bye-laws. Mr. Vakharia has relied upon bye-law 35g of the Sangh in order to contend that the impugned resolution is invalid and contrary to that bye law. Bye-law 35g reads as follows:the term of the member of the managing committee shall be considered as vacant prior to the expiry of that term on account of the following reasons: (k) by tendering resignation in writing. (kh) removal by the general body on account of sufficient reasons and by majority. (g) if one remains absent in three consecutive meetings without taking the permis sion from the committee. IT is not in dispute before me that the petitioners had remained absent from the aforesaid three meetings without obtaining the permission of the committee. What Mr. Vakharia has contended before me is that the three meetings of the managing committee on the dates on which they were held were not independent meetings but were adjourned meetings. According to him a meeting which is adjourned for want of quorum to some other day is no meeting at all because according to him a meet ing is one which is duly and validly constituted. In other words if a meeting is held on a particular day when there is no quorum and if it is adjourned to some other day they do not constitute two meetings.

( 4 ) MR. Raval who appears on behalf of respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. According to him bye-laws of a co-operative society constitute contract between the parties and therefore they cannot be enforced by a writ of this Court. In other words it is not open to this Court to issue a writ to enforce a contractual obligation- In support of his contention he has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD. AND OTHERS V. ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ANDHRA PRADESH. HYDERABAD AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1970 SUPREME COURT 245. It was a case in which an industrial dispute arose between 25 Co-operative Central Bass in the State of Andhra Pradesh and their workmen represented by the Andhra Pradesh Bank Employees Federation Hyderabad. It was referred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad under sec. 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 The Tribunal and the High Court rejected the plea taken on behalf of the Banks and expressed the view that the disputes actually referred to the Tribunal were not capable of being decided by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies under sec. 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 1964 and that therefore the reference made to the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act was competent. In order to appreciate this contention raised on behalf of the Banks the Supreme Court examined the provisions of secs. 16 61 62 and 133 of the Andhra Pradesh Act. It was in that context that the bye-laws of the Co-operative Banks came up for consideration. A contention was raised challenging the jurisdiction of