Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 6.11.2003 in W.P. (C) No. 19948 of 2003. The appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the petitioner and the third respondent in the writ petition.

2. The first appellant, Kadakam Service Co-Operate Bank Limited, No. C.99 (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”) is a society registered under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The first respondent M. Narayana Bhat, was a member of the Bank. At the time of his admission as a member of the Bank, the first respondent paid Rs. 10/- as individual share value. Later, on 27.3.1999 the general body of the Bank amended the bye-laws of the Bank, enhancing the nominal value of one share to Rs. 50/-. The amendment was approved by the second respondent, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. As per the amended byelaws a period of six months was allowed to the existing members to enhance their share value. Accordingly, the Bank published a notice calling upon the existing members to pay the difference in share value in terms of the amended byelaws before 20.4.2000. On the basis of a resolution passed by the general body, the time was subsequently extended upto 20.7.2000. However, the first respondent did not pay the difference in share value within the stipulated time. Long after the expiry of the time for paying the difference in share value, the first respondent submitted Exhibit P1 representation dated 2.1.2003 requesting the Bank to receive the balance share value. The Bank sent Exhibit P2 reply dated 6.1.2003 rejecting the request on the ground that the first respondent was bound to pay the amount within the time granted by the general body and that having failed to do so, he ceased to be a member of the Bank and that he will have to file a fresh application for obtaining membership. Thereupon the first respondent submitted Exhibit P3 petition dated 10.3.2003 demanding information regarding the newspapers in which the notice of the meeting of the general body and the decision of the general body were published. No reply was given by the Bank. Hence, the first respondent filed the writ petition praying for quashing Exhibit P2 and for a direction to the second respondent in the Writ petition to allow the petitioner to remit the additional share amount and accept payment.

3. A counter affidavit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 opposing the prayers in the writ petition. According to the said respondents, on account of his failure to remit the difference in the share value within the time stipulated by the general body, the first respondent ceased to be a member of the Bank and the Bank is not legally bound to accept the additional share amount offered by the first respondent long after the expiry of the time fixed by the general body. It was contended that the writ petitioner could make a fresh application for membership and that it would be considered in accordance with law by the Board of Directors of the Bank.

4. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge took the view that in the absence of any provision in the Rules regarding any time limit, an existing member can pay the balance share amount at any time and enjoy the rights of a full member. According to the learned Single Judge, the time limit, if any, prescribed by the general body can only be directory so as to alert all the members to pay the amount which will help enhancement of the share capital and if a member offers to pay the balance amount after the time limit, the same cannot be rejected. The learned Single Judge directed the second respondent to accept the balance share amount from the petitioner if he pays the same within one month from the date of judgment. Aggrieved by the above direction in the judgment, respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition have filed this appeal.

5. It is not disputed that the bye-laws were amended enhancing the share value of the Bank. It is also not dispute