The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of a legally constituted committee before considering the question of quorum and the importance of complying with statutory requirements and principles of natural justice under S.33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

By these two petitions the problems of the Board of Directors or the committee of the Udayanapuram Service Co-operative bank Ltd. are brought before this court by the petitioner Sri. Padmanabhan, who avers mat he was the President of the said Board of Directors till January 7, 1995, because by an order (Ext. P1)- translation Ext. P1 (a)) the Joint Registrar, Kottayam in exercise of the powers under S.33 of the Act proceeded to appoint (he Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vaikom Unit, as its administrator for a period of six months. This impugned order is the subject-matter of O.P. No. 1436/1995. This ultimate order has a little background. Apart from O.P. No. 7809/1994, which is also taken up for hearing and final decision along with the above petition by the earlier oral order of this court, there is yet one more petition, O.P. No. 15406/1994 which would require a reference, although it is decided by a judgment of this court dt. January 4, 1995.

2. One Mr. Sebastian preferred O.P. 15406/1994 to challenge certain orders and notices of the joint Registrar. Mr. Sebastian is a member of the Board of Directors of which the present petitioner Mr. Padmanabhan was the President till January 7, 1995, as stated above. On January 17, 1993 the Board of Directors came to he elected with the office for a period of three years thereafter. The strength of the Board of Directors as per the bylaws is admittedly 11 members. It appears that Mr. Sebastian, on and from June 9,1994, came to be appointed as the Branch Manager of the Bank, Vallakam Branch, and that too, it is alleged, in an honorary capacity. This was by the resolution of the Bozird. When the said Board was in existence upto May 27,1994, one Mr. Raju was the President of the Board. He figures as a respondent in these petitions. The facts proceed further and tell us mat this Raju lost president ship in pursuance of a no-confidence motion and he was replaced by Sri. Padmanabhan, the petitioner in these petitions.

3. In both these petitions there are factual allegations and descriptions of the movements of Sri. Raju as a result of his loss of presidentship in pursuance of the no-confidence motion. The averments show that Sri. Raju became a busy body keeping the Joint Registrar engaged by making petitions obviously against the present petitioner. Ultimately, the question which was the subject-matter of O.P. No. 15406/ 1994 was whether the disqualification of Mr. Sebastian was proper and justifiable. This court did not interfere with the order of the respondent No.1 (the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam, disqualifying Mr. Sebastian to continue to be the member of the Board of Directors. This order has received finality and Mr. Sebastian is out of the Board of Directors.

4. Apart therefrom, when O.P. No. 7809/1994 was filed, in C.M.P. No. 13610/ 1994 therein, this court by an order dt. June 13, 1994 granted stay as prayed for in the said petition. It should be stated that this order is modified by a subsequent order of this court dt. September 27,1994. At this time this court, it is stated, carefully examined the averments in the original petition and the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 therein (Sri.Raju) and modified the stay order making it clear that the slay regarding supercession of the Board of Directors shall continue-to operate. In other words, it is under this order that the Board of Directors continued and the supercession was postponed. In the said order it is clear that the Joint Registrar, Kottayam would be entitled to go into the objections filed by the respondent No. 3 (Sri. Raju ). It is also made clear (hat in the event of the Joint Registrar coming to the conclusion that the meetings are not validly constituted, he should bring the same to the notice of the court and seek further orders. It is further observed that the Joint Registrar also shall bring to the notice of this court if he finds that an