Radhakrishnan, J.

These writ petitions have been placed before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge doubting the correctness of the judgment reported in Mathachan v. Joint Registrar, (2006 (2) KLT 45). In that judgment the learned single Judge has taken the view that Rule 43A (ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules providing 15 clear days notice for moving a no-confidence motion is only directory and not mandatory. Learned single Judge has also taken the view that while going by the scheme of meetings for consideration of no-confidence motion a person against whom the motion is moved has no right to vote in that meeting.

2. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 24820 of 2006 has approached this court seeking a declaration that Ext.P1 notice issued by the Assistant Registrar to convene the meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion is in violation of the statutory provisions contained in rule 43A of the Rules as 15 clear days notice has not been given to the members. He has also sought for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass appropriate order on Exts.P6 and P7 before convening the meeting on 27-9-06 and also for other consequential reliefs. Respondents 3 to 6 along with others submitted R3(A) notice dated 25-8-06 to convene a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Thereupon on 11-9-06 the second respondent Assistant Registrar issued Ext.P1 notice by registered post to all the committee members, including the petitioner as well as the respondents informing about the convening of the meeting on 27-9-06 in order to discuss the no-confidence motion against the petitioner. All the committee members received the said notice on 12.9.06. Petitioner submitted that he has received the notice issued by second respondent only on 13-9-06 and hence no meeting could be convened on 27-09-06 since it is clear violation of Rule 43A(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules since no less than 15 clear days notice was not there from the date of receipt of notice to the date of convening of the meeting.

3. Question therefore to be decided is whether 15 clear days notice as provided under rule 43A(ii) is mandatory or directory. We may in this connection extract Rule 43A:

“Removal of President, Vice-President etc. by no-confidence motion – A committee shall remove the President or the Vice-President or the Treasurer or any other officer of the committee from his office by a no-confidence motion in the following manner, namely :-

(i) A notice of intention to move a no-confidence motion signed by such number of members as shall constitute not less than one third of the total strength of the committee, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be removed shall be delivered to the Registrar, in person, by any two members signing the notice.

(ii) Any officer duly authorized by the Registrar concerned in this behalf shall arrange for the consideration of the motion in a meeting of the committee to be held at the office of the society on a date appointed by him, which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the copy of the motion referred to clause (i) was delivered to the Registrar. The said officer shall give to the members, not less than fifteen clear days of notice of such meeting and of the time appointed therefore.

XX XX XXX XX XXXX

(v) No meeting under this rule shall be held, if at the time appointed under the foregoing provisions or, within half an hour from such time, such number of members as shall constitute one half of the total strength of the committee are not present.”

Learned single Judge in Mathachan’s case has taken the view that considering the scheme of Rule 43A as a whole, the predominant requirement is that a no-confidence motion shall be considered not later than thirty days of the delivery of the notice to move the said motion, to the registrar and that if such a meeting could not be held for want of quorum or if motion is not carried, no notice of a