The administrator appointed under S.33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act has the power to discharge the functions of the Managing Committee, including the appointment and withdrawal of a delegate. The court emphasized the need for statutory restrictions on the powers and functions of the administrative committee or administrator to support democratic functioning of co-operative societies.

1. Learned Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2.4.5 and 6 in the former O.P. and respondents 2 and 6 in the latter O.P. T find it unnecessary to issue notice to other respondents in both the cases. I have heard both sides.

2. Petitioner in O.P. No. 6667 of 1987 is one of the present Directors (Member) of the Board of Directors (Managing Committee) of a credit cooperative society affiliated to the Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank Limited. He claims to have been elected delegate by the Managing Committee of the society to represent the society in the general body meeting of the Co-operative Bank to be held on 23-8-1987 for electing members of the Managing Committee (Board of Directors) of the bank. He has filed nomination papers for election to the post of Member of the Managing Committee which is to consist of ten members who are to be elected by the general body of the bank giving representation to specified types of societies as stated in bye-law No. 26 of the bye-laws of the bank. Third respondent is the Returning Officer appointed for the purpose. He has issued election notice as seen in Ext. P2. Process of election has commenced. Meanwhile in as many as 25 affiliated societies Managing Committees have been replaced by Administrators appointed under S.33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short'the Act'). Petitioner believes that the Joint Registrar has instructed the Returning Officer not to allow the delegates of these societies to vote in the general body meeting but to allow Administrators to exercise franchise. Twenty five societies have been impleaded as respondents 4 to 28. He seeks writ of mandamus directing the authorities to allow the elected delegates of the affiliated societies to participate in the election to be held on 23-8-1987, writ of prohibition prohibiting the Administrators of the affiliated societies from exercising franchise in the election and declaration that elected delegates of affiliated societies alone are entitled to vote.

3. Petitioner in O.P. No. 6693 of 1987 is a Member of the third respondent. Chittur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, which is affiliated to Palghat District Co-operative Bank Limited. In the election to the Managing Committee of the affiliated bank held in 1982 be filed his nomination, but that was rejected. Ultimately the Tribunal as per Ext.P1 judgment declared him elected. However, the term of office of the committee expired on 30-6-1984 and since then affiliated bank is under the administration of the first respondent. He claims to have been elected by the previous Managing Committee, which held office till 30-6-1984 as delegate to the District Cooperative Bank. He also claims that the first respondent in his capacity as Administrator of the affiliated bank under Ext. P2 dated 1-8-1984 appointed him delegate of third respondent to the Palghat District Co-operative Bank. The Managing Committee of District Co-operative Bank is to vacate office on 31-81987 and election is to take place at the general body meeting to be held on 29-8-1987. He apprehends that the first respondent will pass fresh order withdrawing him as delegate and nominating himself or another person. He has therefore filed the original petition seeking declaration that he is entitled to continue as delegate for the Palghat District Co-operative Bank till the expiry of the term of office of the latter Bank and writ of prohibition restraining the first respondent from withdrawing the petitioner as a delegate or from appointing any other person as delegate.

4. The two original petitions have been heard together since common question arise for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged the following arguments.

(i) The decision of a learned single judge of this court in Sudhakaran v Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Societies (1980 KLT 658) has been dissented by another learned single judge of this court in Gopalan v joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (