S. Sankarasubban, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P. No. 18196/99 by the second respondent in the Original Petition. The third respondent in the Original Petition is the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd., which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The election to the third respondent/ Cooperative Bank was notified to beheld on 27.2.1999. The first petitioner in the Original Petition Jaya Varma filed O.P. No. 3762/99 challenging the removal of 1951 members from the final voters list published by the Returning Officer.

2. In C.M.P. No. 16510/99 in O.P. No. 3762/99 this Court allowed casting of votes by the 1951 members subject to the result of the Original Petition. The election accordingly took place on 27.2.1999. By another order in C.M.P. No. 16510/99 a direction was given to declare the results by counting the undisputed votes alone. The results were declared on 26.4.1999. The meeting of the elected persons were held as required under R.38 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules on 11.5.1999. President and Vice President were elected on the same day. O.P. No. 3762/1999 and W. A. No. 786 of 1999 were finally disposed of on 7.7.1999. The court declared that the persons whose votes were collected in separate box could be counted. The court also found that the election of two persons has to set aside. It thereafter directed the Returning Officer to alter the declaration already made to that extent. The Returning Officer thereafter rendered an order cancelling the election of two persons and declaring elected two other persons in their stead.

3. Thereafter, there was a demand for the resignation of the President. Since he did not resign, the members wanted to convene a meeting of the Board of Directors for moving a motion of no confidence. The Original Petition was filed for a declaration to the first respondent, viz., the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pathanamthitta to convene a meeting of the general body in order to discuss the no confidence motion. The learned single judge considered the question. The learned single judge took the view that since the original election of the President was only provisional and the final declaration of the results was made only subsequently, the President should get himself elected again, since there was a change in the complexion of the Managing Committee. The learned single judge allowed the Original Petition and directed a fresh election to be conducted for the post of President. It is against the above judgment that the present appeal is preferred by the second respondent.

4. The contention of the appellant is that originally, this Court directed the counting of only those votes with regard to which there was no controversy. The appellant and some other members of the Managing Committee were elected. When the Original Petition was finally disposed of, this Court found that the names of two persons should be deleted and in their place two other members should be substituted. In accordance with the above judgment, the Registrar declared the elections of two members. It is subsequently found that the President was elected at the time when declaration was made originally. The election was provisional. Hence, they could not participate in the election of the President. Now, they want to remove the petitioner by no confidence motion. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the action of the petitioner was malafide and he was trying to take all steps to block the convening of the meeting.

5. Two points arise for consideration in this case:

(1) Was the election of the appellant as President only provisional?

(2) Is there any provision under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to move no confidence motion against the appellant?

6. Point No. 1: This point found favour with the learned single Judge. The learned single judge took the view that the results of the election were allowed to be declared