Petitioner's nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer (second respondent) on the ground that he is a defaulter to the Society as a surety. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not taken any loan from the Society, that he was a surety for one of the members on the Society and that there cannot be any question of default in the payment of the loan as recover) 'has been effected pursuant to attachment of the salary. Petitioner filed his nomination to contest from the general constituency to the Managing Committee of the Society and on scrutiny on 3-12-1992 it. was rejected

2. Contention of the petitioner is that no notice was given to him as provided under R. 44(2) (a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and so long as that was not done the rejection of the nomination can never he justified. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that no such notice is necessary in a case where a member of the Society seeks election to become a member of the Managing Committee.

3. The question that arises for consideration is whether notice contemplated under the proviso to R.44 (2)(a) is mandatory in a case where a member of the Society seeks election to become a memb