The main legal principle established is that the word 'may' in a statute can be interpreted as 'shall' in the context, indicating a mandatory obligation for the concerned authority.

The question that arises in these original petitions is whether the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is bound to appoint a returning officer for conduct of election on receipt of a resolution by the committee of a Co-operative Society or whether he has discretion in the matter.

2. Petitioner in O.P.6457 of 1992 is the President of Ranny Government Servants' Co-operative Society. The term of the present managing committee will expire on 30-6-1992. A meeting of the managing committee was convened on 24-4-1992 and a resolution adopted to conduct election on 27-6-1992. The 2nd respodent was requested to appoint a returning officer to conduct election. He refused to appoint a returning officer and informed the petitioner that further steps for conducting the election could not be taken since the resolution is not consistent with S.28(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act and R.35(1) of the Rules. That order of the 2nd respondent is challenged in this O.P. Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 and a direction to 2nd respondent to appoint a returning officer to conduct election to the Managing Committee.

3. The other petition O.P.6476 of 1992 is filed by the President of Seethathodu Service Co-operative Bank. Here also the managing committee of the bank had passed a resolution to conduct election on 20-6-1992 and request was made for appointment of a returning officer. The 2nd respondent has no t so far appointed a returning officer and the matter was delayed. Hence the petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing 2nd respondent to appoint a returning officer to conduct election to the managing committee. Second respondent in O.P.6457 of 1992 filed a statement contending that the resolution adopted by the managing committee was defective. Since there is no resolution for convening a general body meeting for conduct of election, no action was taken for appointment of a returning officer. The fact that there was no proper resolution has been intimated to the society by the Asst. Registrar as per letter dated 30-4-1992. No statement is seen filed in O.P.6476 of 1992. These petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. The request of petitioner in O.P.6457 of 1992 for appointment of a returning officer was rejected on three grounds: (1) there was no proper notice of the managing committee meeting, (2) the minutes of the committee were not closed and signed by the competent officer, and (3) no resolution was passed by the society for convening a general body meeting for election. The order of 2nd respondent refusing to appoint a returning officer is challenged by the petitioner in O.P.6457 of 1992.

5. Before considering the validity of the objections raised by the 2nd respondent it has to be seen whether the Registrar is bound to appoint a returning officer when once such a request has been made by the committee of the society through a resolution? The procedure regarding conduct of election to the committee of societies is dealt with in R.35 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. The committee has to meet 60 days in advance ofthe date of expiration of the term and pass a resolution fixing the date, time and place for the conduct of the election to the new committee. A copy of that resolution has to be forwarded to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by registered post within a week.. On receipt of such a resolution the Registrar may appoint a returning officer for the conduct ofthe election. The question arises whether the Registrar has a duty to appoint a returning officer when once a resolution has been received by him or whether he can scrutinise the resolution for finding out whether it was properly adopted or not.

6. Sub-rule 2 of R.35 reads thus:

"The Registrar may on receipt of such resolution appoint a returning officer for the conduct of election "

Learned Government Pleader would point out that the Registrar is given a discretion in the matter by using the wor