The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the voting rights of administrators and delegates, the validity of votes from newly enrolled societies, and the extension of the administrator's term without a time limit.

These two Original Petitions relate to election to the Board of Directors of Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd., (for short 'the bank'). The Bank is a central society having its members enlisted only from other co-operative societies functioning within the territorial limits of revenue district of Idukki. Each of the member societies elects a delegate to the central society. Such delegates constitute the general body of the Bank. The erstwhile Board of Directors of the Bank was removed and an administrator was appointed on 21-6-1989, as per S.33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short'the Act'). When the administrator has initiated steps to hold elections for a new Board of Directors, petitioners apprehended that such elections would be so manipulated by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Idukki at the behest of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) as to send only persons who are partisans to that political party as delegates to the central society. Misalleged that 37 co-operative societies which are member societies of the Bank were brought under the control of administrators appointed by the joint Registrar after removing or superseding committees of those societies.

2. During the pendency of these Original Petitions election was held to the Board of Directors of the Bank on 19-9-89 pursuant to the order passed on a Civil Miscellaneous Petition. From a few member societies administrators themselves went and cast votes and from others the delegates deputed by the administrators came and voted. This Court directed the returning officers to collect the votes cast by the administrators in one ballot box and the votes cast by the delegates deputed by the administrators in a separate ballot box, and to file a report before this Court on 12-9-1990 after counting but without declaring the results. In accordance therewith, votes collected in separate ballot boxes were counted separately and a report has been filed by the returning officer. One ballot box contained votes polled by the administrators directly. Another ballot box contained votes polled by the delegates sent by the administrators. Yet another ballot box contained votes polled by the delegates sent by newly enrolled societies. A fourth ballot box contained votes polled by the delegates sent by the remaining societies. (Though a fifth ballot box was set apart for collecting votes polled by the societies under liquidation, no vote fell in that box). The votes found in different ballot boxes were separately counted and tabulated by the returning officer and he incorporated details in his report.

3. As the Original Petitions were filed, before the election was held, some of the reliefs claimed related to the manner in which the election was to be held. Now that the election was held, the reliefs which survive for consideration are these: (1) A declaration that administrators of member societies are not entitled to vote in the election. (2) A declaration that an ordinary member of the society is not eligible to be sent as its delegate to the central society and hence he is not qualified to exercise vote. (3) Votes cast by delegates from the newly enrolled societies cannot be counted in this election. (4) A declaration that R.44A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short' the rules') is ultra vires to the Act. (5) To issue a writ of prohibition restraining the 1st respondent against further extending the term of administrators appointed for the member societies.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies in which most of the allegations made in the Original Petitions were denied. It is unnecessary to refer to those contentions since polling took place pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. A decision on the five main reliefs now claimed will be sufficient to dispose of the Original Petitions, as matters stand now. I, therefore, proceed to consider whether