The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the managing committee to remove the President after passing a motion of no confidence, and the interpretation of R.176 for rescission of resolutions against the provisions of the Act, Rules, or Bye-laws.

1. Parties are agreed that the original petition itself may be taken up and disposed of. Counsel for the first respondent submits that the counter affidavit filed in C.M.P. NO.21931 of 1989 may be treated as the counter affidavit in the original petition.

2. The petitioner was the President of the Manimala Service Co-operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank), a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). On certain allegations of misconduct, seven out of the thirteen members of the managing committee of the Bank made requisition to the first respondent, Secretary of the Bank, to convene an extraordinary meeting of the managing committee to consider a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. The first respondent felt obliged by bye-law 38(a) of the bye-laws of the Bank to convene the meeting of the managing committee, since the requisition was made by more than one-third of the members of the committee. He accordingly convened a meeting of the Board on June, 23,1989 and served notice thereof on the petitioner on June 20,1989.

3. The petitioner thereupon moved the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to stop the meeting on the ground that it was not properly convened. But, the latter did not take any action. The meeting was held on June 23, at which the seven requisitionists attended, the others boycotted, and the motion of no confidence was passed. The petitioner then received another notice Ext.P2 dated June 23,1989 from the first respondent Secretary convening a meeting of the managing committee on June 27,1989 to elect a new President. The petitioner moved the Assistant Registrar to stop the meeting, but this time also no action was taken. Thereupon, he filed writ petition O.P.No.5312 of 1989 in this court complaining about the inaction of the Assistant Registrar. The Government Pleader, who appeared submitted before this court that the Assistant Registrar "had not granted permission" to hold the meetings on 23rd or 27th June. This court noted the submission, and closed the original petition with the observation that the petitioner may move the appropriate authority under R.176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the Rules) to rescind the resolution passed on June, 23. A copy of the judgment of this court dated July 3,1989 is Ext.P4.

4. The petitioner moved the Joint Registrar accordingly under R.176, raising two points in substance. Firstly he contended neither the Act, the Rules nor the bye-laws contemplated a motion of no confidence for removal from office of the President of a Co-operative Society. Secondly it was stated that the meeting which was held on June 23,1989, at which the motion of no-confidence was passed, had not been validly convened as the Secretary, who convened it, had no authority to do so, either under the Act, the Rules or the bye-laws. The motion of no-confidence passed at such a meeting was therefore null and void.

5. The Joint Registrar rejected the petition by his proceedings Ext.P8. He held that when the managing committee is entitled to elect a President, it was equally competent for them to remove him from office, on principles underlying S.16 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125. The decision of this court in Narayanan Nair v. Joint Registrar, 1982 KLT 602 holding likewise was relied on. On the second point, the Joint Registrar took an extreme view. He noted that the challenge to the resolution was based on the invalidity of the meeting at which it was passed. Such invalidity of a meeting, because of lack of quorum, or irregularity in its convening or otherwise, does not fall within the purview of R.176, which permitted recession of a resolution only on certain specified and limited grounds. The petition under R.176 was not therefore, maintainable on the second ground alleged by the petitioner. The petition was therefore rejected.

6. Petitioner challenges Ext.P8, raising the s