1. Petitioner, the President of the elected committee of the third respondent society, challenges Ext.P7 issued by the first respondent on 24-10-2007 appointing the second respondent administrator under Section 33(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, the "Act", for short, on the ground that the committee has lost the quorum prescribed by Clause 15.6 of its bye-laws, following the arrest of a committee member Sri. Babychan in connection with a murder case and the committee had not met after 7-4-2007 which was the last valid meeting of the committee.

2. Thebye-laws of the society provide for a committee with nine members. Following the election on 15-12-2003, five persons were elected to the committee and they took charge on that day. A copy of the bye-laws is placed before me during arguments and put to the parties. Clause 15.6 of the byelaws reads as follows:

"15.6 The Board of Directors shall meet, once in every month as often as necessary to conduct the affairs of the Society. The quorum for such meeting shall be 5."

3. According to the petitioner, a meeting was held on 1-5-2007 and thereafter, on 31-10-2007, after the admittedly valid meeting on 7-4-2007 and the meetings on 1-5-2007 and 31-10-2007 were attended by all the members of the committee, including Sri. Babychan and therefore, the impugned action are unsustainable.

4. In opposition, Ext.R1(a) is produced along with the counter affidavit of the first respondent whereby the Circle Inspector of Police, Kuthiyathodu has addressed the first respondent on 14-8-2007 stating that Sri. Babychan was arrested at 5.30 a.m. on 1-5-2007. On the strength of that document, the first respondent contends that though the records of the society would show that Resolution No.12 was drawn up on 1-5-2007 requesting the State Co-operative Election Commission to appoint an electoral officer and a returning officer for the purpose of bye-election to the existing four vacancies, such resolution is a fraudulent one since Sri. Babychan could not have participated after his arrest, recorded to be at 5.30 a.m. Regarding the meeting on 31-10-2007, the plea of the first respondent is that the said meeting was held at Vaikom, away from the area of operation of the society.

5. Themeeting of 31-10-2007, according to the version of the petitioner, was held in Vaikom because of the directions contained in the bail order of Babychan interdicting him from entering the area of Alappuzha District.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the last meeting having been held on 7-4-2007, going by the prescription in the bye-laws that the Board of Directors shall meet once in every month, the situation that could lead to any action under Section 33(1) of the Act on the ground that committee failed to hold its regular meeting consecutively for six months can occur only if no meeting was held in October, 2007 and because, a meeting was held on 31-10-2007, that provision is not violated. He cited the decision of the Delhi High Court in Daryodh Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1973 Delhi 58) and that of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kali v. Sia Ram (AIR 1978 Allahabad 546) dilating on the term "month", with reference to the provisions of the General Clauses Act. Abdul Latif v. Commissioner Gorakhpur (AIR 1968 Allahabad 44) was referred, to emphasize that an opportunity of explanation ought to have been granted on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and also that the concept of the term "month" has to be construed by treating it as the calender month.

7. Thelearned Government Pleader, on the other hand, argued that the alleged meeting on 1-5-2007 cannot be believed on the face of Ext.R1(a) and counting from 8-4-2007, no other meeting was, indisputably, held before 7-4-2007 and hence, Ext.P7 decision is in order.

8. In paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the first respondent, the provision in Clause

15.6 of the bye-laws, as quoted above, is reiterated to s