The petitioner challenges rejection of his nomination as a candidate for the election to the committee of the first respondent Co-operative Bank. He became a member of that Bank on 18.1979. It is stated that he had been a member of its committee repeatedly, at least on three occasions. The rejection of his nomination for the ensuing election is on the ground that he holds dual membership in as much as, from 12.1997, he had been a member off the Klappana Service Co-operative Bank, a society of the same type as that of the first respondent. These facts are not in dispute.

2. The petitioner contends that in terms of Rules 16 and 44 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, the “Rules”, for short, and in terms of Section 28(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short the “Act”, dual membership is not a disqualification and the only action that could be taken against the petitioner is his removal from membership in terms of Rule 27(2) of the Rules.

3. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that this Court has laid down in Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar [1996 (1) KLT 285] that the returning officer is within jurisdiction to decide on the question of qualification and that, in terms of Rule 35A(6)(d), no person who is ineligible to vote in the election, shall be nominated as a candidate for the election.

4. The learnedcounsel appearing for the first respondent, which is now under an administrator committee, argued that, even applying the ratio of the decision in Natarajan v. Returning Officer [1997 (2) KLT 253], on facts, the liability is for removal from the rolls of the first respondent society since that was the society, of the petitioner became a member, without the previous sanction of the Registrar in terms of rule 27(1) of the Rules.

5. Going by section 16 of the Act, the membership of a person to a society depends upon the decision of the committee of the society and the right to vote in terms of Section 20 can be exercised only after he has made such payments to the society, in respect of membership, or has acquired such interest in the society, as may be prescribed by the rules or the bye-laws, going by section 19 of the Act. Rule 35A(6)(d) referred to by the learned Senior Government Pleader provides that no member shall be nominated as a candidate for election, if he is ineligible to vote in the election. The eligibility to vote in the election could be considered by the returning officer by applying the ratio in Vijayakumar’s case (supra). Rule 44(1) does not provide dual membership as a ground for disqualification of membership of the committee. It was therefore that, it was held, in Natarajan’s case (supra), among other things, that dual membership is not a ground of disqualification from contesting in the election or to become a member of the committee, to which proposition, I am in complete agreement. Not only that, so long as there is no provision in the bye-laws prohibiting dual membership, there is no infraction of the bye-laws as regards the matter of granting membership. This is what has been stated in the opening paragraph in Natarajan’s case, before the learned Judge proceeded to quote Rule 27(2) of the Rules in that judgment. No provision of the bye-laws of the first respondent Society prohibiting dual membership is pointed out. As it was in Natrajan’s case, in the case in hand also, the petitioner’s name was included in the draft voters’ list; it was not objected to by anybody and the final voters’ list was published, on the strength of which the nomination has been made.

6. Adverting to Rule 27, it can be seen that sub-rule (2) thereof prescribes the liability for the infraction of the provisions in sub-rule (1) and therefore, the legal prescription as to law shall be only that consequence, particularly when such consequence is deprivation of membership in a society. the provision in sub-rule (2) obliging a society to act on a written requisition from th