The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions related to the appointment and removal of the President of a Co-operative Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969, emphasizing the democratic and cooperative principles underlying the co-operative law and the concept of locus standi in bringing the writ petition.

1. This writ petition raises two questions of law: (I) whether the President of a Co-operative Society could be removed from his office by a motion carried by a majority of the number of members of the committee (Board of Directors) of the Society; and (2) whether such removal could be challenged by a member of the society.

2. The facts briefly stated are as follows:-The two petitioners are members of Anikkad Service Co-operative Bank (the Bank), the 3rd respondent in the Original Petition. Respondents 1 and 2 respectively are the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam, and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Muvattupuzha. Respondents 4 and 5 are stated to be the members of the Committee of the Bank. The affairs of the 3rd respondent Bank is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 (the Act) and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the Rules) and the bye-laws framed thereunder for the Bank. The 5th respondent was the President of the Bank duly elected at the meeting of the committee held on 19-4-1981. While so, in November 1981 a requisition was made by seven members out of nine members of the committee to discuss a no confidence motion against the President, the 5th respondent and to elect a new President in his place. A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on 31-11-1981. The 5tb respondent who presided over the meeting ruled that no confidence motion against the President was not envisaged by the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws; and what followed was a declaration by him that the meeting was dissolved. Ext. P-1 is the copy of the proceedings of the said meeting held on 3-11-1981. Decision No. 461 of that meeting, extracted at page 12 of the writ petition, is to the effect that the resolution tabled for the passing of the no confidence motion against the President, the 5th respondent, and the one relating to the election of a new President being nutters not provided for in the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws, could not be taken up for consideration and, therefore, the meeting was dissolved. It would appear that after the meeting presided over by the 5th respondent was dissolved, as mentioned above, six members held a meeting and elected the 4th respondent Sri C A. Majeed to be President of the Bank. Intimation regarding this election of the 4th respondent to the office of the President of the Bank was conveyed by him (4th respondent) to the 1st respondent, who, in his turn, by his proceedings No. CRP. 10425/81 dated 20-11-1981 addressed to the 5th respondent directed him to hand over charge of the records to the 4th respondent as he was stated to have been the newly elected President. Ext P-3 is the copy of the letter dated 7-11-1981 from the 5th respondent to the Secretary of the Bank asking for the calling of an extraordinary meeting of the General Body, as provided in bye-law 23, Part II.

3. In this writ petition it is contended that the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws of the Bank do not permit moving or the passing of a no confidence motion against the President of the Society. S.28 of the Act provides for the appointment of the committee. According to that section, the general body of a society shall constitute a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee. It also provides for nomination of members of the committee for such period as may be provided for by the bye-laws and as provided for by the Government or the Registrar. While R.43 of the Rules makes provision in regard to the election of President, Vice President, Treasurer or any other officer, by whatever name he is designated, it does not make any specific provision regarding the removal of the President from his office by the passing of a no confidence motion. All the same, it is of considerable importance to notice that sub-section (1) of S.31 makes provision for the Government, or any auth