The main legal point established is that the requirements for appointing an administrator under S.33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, including consultation with the Circle Co-operative Union and publication of a notice inviting objections, are directory in nature and non-compliance with these requirements does not invalidate the appointment of the administrator.

1. The petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking to quash the decision of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal evidenced by Ext. P3, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed an appeal which the petitioner had preferred before it. By that appeal the petitioner had challenged an order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Trichur on 3 101970 (Ext. P2) appointing an administrator to be in charge of the affairs of the Punnayurkulam Service Co-operative Society under S.33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was the President of the said Co-operative Society and he has a claim that he still continues to occupy the said office. The order Ext. P2 was passed by the Deputy Registrar on the ground that the term of office of the Committee of the

Society which was originally due to expire on 30 61970 bad been extended only till 30 9-1970 by virtue of an order passed by him and that even though the extended period had also come to a close on 30 91970 the Society had not made any arrangements for conducting elections to the Board of Directors and that hence it had become necessary to take urgent action for making suitable alternate arrangements for the day to day management of the Society.

2. The attack levelled by the petitioner against the said action taken by the Deputy Registrar before the Co-operative Tribunal was two fold. Firstly, it was urged that the impugned order had been passed without consulting the Circle Co-operative Union as provided in S.33 of the Act. The second objection was that there had not been due compliance with the procedure prescribed in the proviso to S.33 which enjoins the publication of a notice on the notice board of the Society inviting objections to the making of the proposed order appointing an administrator. According to the petitioner' by reason of the non-compliance with the statutory requirements referred to above the order passed by the Deputy Registrar was null and void. These contentions did not find favour with the Tribunal and it accordingly rejected the appeal.

3. The very same contentions have been reiterated by the petitioner before this Court also in support of his plea that the decision of the Tribunal suffers from errors of law apparent on the face of the record.

4. There is yet another point which the petitioner unsuccessfully urged before the Tribunal and that relates to the correctness of the statement made by the Deputy Registrar in Ext. P2 that the period of office of the Board of Directors of the Society had expired on 30 61970. According to the petitioner the term of office of the Board of Directors of which he was the President will expire only on 31 11971 and hence it was not open to the Deputy Registrar to proceed to appoint any administrator for the Society in purported exercise of his power under S 33 of the Act. The Tribunal rejected this contention holding that under the by laws of the Society read in the light of S.2(u) of the Act and R.39 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules the term of office of the Society did expire on 30 61970. The Tribunal relied also on the fact that the Board of which the petitioner was the President, had itself proceeded on the basis that its term was to expire on 30 61970 and had applied to the Deputy Registrar for an extension of its term by a period of three months beyond 30 61970 and that it was after having obtained such an extension and enjoyed the benefit thereof and when a second request made by the Board for a further extension of its term was turned down by the Deputy Registrar and an administrator was appointed for the Society under S.33 that the petitioner had raised the above contention.

5. Though the counsel appearing for the petitioner urged the aforesaid contention before this Court also, I do not find any force in the argument advanced by him that on a correct interpretation of bye-laws Nos. 33 and 34 of the Bye-laws of the Society the t