The main legal point established in the judgment is that challenges to elections and the validity of rules under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act must be pursued in the appropriate forum as per the relevant statute, and the distinction between 'notice' and 'intimation' in the context of election procedures.

1. This writ petition concerns the election to the Board of Directors of a Co-operative Society, the Nadapuram Service Co-operative Bank Limited. That Society, going by the records in the case would appear to be a hotbed of litigation and not an oasis of co-operation. This litigation is perhaps yet another dying ember in the fire.

2. Elections did not take place on the expiry of the term of office of the previous Board. That resulted in an administrative committee being in office. That committee perhaps behaved just like any other administrative committee or many of such committees. If the allegations of the 4th respondent are correct, they constitute a sad commentary on the functioning of that committee. This Court is not concerned in this writ petition with the allegations about the omissions and commissions of that committee. It is sufficient to say that the petitioner, who was the Chairman of the Administrative Committee, figures in, and spear-heads, many a litigation.

3. Attempts were made earlier to stay, and thus prolong the elections in 1982. That was the main purpose of O.P. No. 7161 of 1982, where an interim order of stay of election had been initially passed. This was opposed by the section favouring election. A writ petition - O.P. No. 9434 of 1982-was filed seeking the intervention of the court to ensure an early election to the Society. A direction was issued by the court for the conduct of such an election. That such an election has been held is not in controversy. In the light of the subsequent events, the newly elected members have assumed charge as such.

4. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had approached this Court for postponding the election scheduled to be held on 28-8-1983, on the ground that the notices had not been duly served on all the members. That writ petition, OP. No. 7245 of 1983 was admitted by this Court. This Court, however, did not find it fit to keep in abeyance the elections. Though initially the results were with-held, that embargo was later lifted. Respondents 4 to 10. according to the declared results, are the successful candidates. The writ petition was disposed of along with another writ petition, O. P. No. 7244 of 1983, by judgment Ext. R4(a) dated 1-8-1984 by a Division Bench. The Division Bench observed that the original petition had become infructuous, "in view of the fact that the election wag held on 28-8-1983" and the fact that "no attempt has been made to challenge the election in the appropriate forum by recourse to the appropriate proceedings provided under the statute" and that "none of the amendment petitions has been ordered by this Court." The amendment petitions alluded to were C.M.P. Nos. 22251, 22330, and 27196 of 1983 and 5269 of 1984, seeking amendment of the original petition to envelope additional prayers for declaration about the invalidity of the election and other reliefs. The Division Bench noted:

"No order has been passed is any one of these petitions No notice has been issued by this Court in any one of them."

The Division Bench ultimately observed:

"Without prejudice to whatever right that the petitioners may have to approach the appropriate forum in terms of the relevant statute to challenge the validity of the election, these original petitions are dismissed. But the dismissal of those petitions will not prejudice the right, if any, of the petitioners to challenge the validity of the rules in appropriate proceedings." (emphasis supplied)

5. The present writ petition was filed on 3-8-1984, challenging the selfsame election and seeking a declaration that R.35(3)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules is ultra vires S.104 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

6. The first prayer was totally mischievous and frivolous. The challenge to the election had been turned down by the Division Bench, clearly pointing out that such a challenge could be had only in the "appropriate forum in terms of the relevant statute." That judgment has become final and