Petitioner is a member of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Bank. Ext.P1 is the election notification issued by the 2nd respondent, scheduling election to the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent on 16.8.2009. In terms of the schedule fixed in Ext.P1, preliminary voters list has been published on 24.7.2009. Objections were to be filed on or before 4

p.m on 28.7.2009 and final voters list, was to be published at 11 a.m on 30.7.2009.

2. Referring to Ext.P3 dated 17.3.2009, petitioner submits that as on that date, there were 11000 members in the 3rd respondent society. It is stated that in the General Body Meeting held on 25.3.2005, the bye laws were amended, enhancing the share value from Rs.10/- to Rs.50/-. The society submits that, as provided in Section 12 of the KCS Act, the amendment was registered on 18.9.2006. According to the petitioner since individual notices as contemplated under Section 11(2) of the Act calling upon the members to pay enhanced share value was not given about 5000 members could not pay the enhanced share value.

3. In view of this, representations were made to the Assistant Registrar and also to the Joint Registrar. Accordingly, orders were passed and Ext.P5 is the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 29.6.2009, directing that the 33 complainants who had approached him be permitted to pay the enhanced share value and allowed to exercise their voting rights in the election. That order of the Assistant Registrar was challenged before this court in WP(c). No. 20733/09 resulting in Ext.P7 judgment dismissing the writ petition.

4. Petitioner states that despite this, Ext.P5 order was not complied with the therefore he again complained to the Joint Registrar. He also approached this court complaining that the Joint Registrar was not considering the representation, by filing WP (c).No.19441/09, resulting in Ext.P6 judgment directing the Joint Registrar to deal with the complaints.

5. Accordingly, by Ext.P8 notice, hearing was fixed by the Joint Registrar at 2 p.m on 28.7.2009. It is stated that the date fixed for filling objections to the preliminary voters list published on 24.7.2009, was on 28.7.2009. It is submitted that the petitioner reported at the office of the first respondent for filing his objections to the preliminary voters list but as the first respondent was not in office, though he waited till afternoon, he could not file the objections. It is stated that, in order to appear before the Joint Registrar for the hearing pursuant to Ext.P6 Judgment, he had to leave the office of the first respondent. The Joint Registrar heard the parties and passed Ext.P9 order, directing that 33 persons who had complained to the Assistant Registrar should be allowed to pay the enhanced share value and exercise their voting rights.

6. Petitioner submits that on 29.7.2009 he again approached the first respondent and despite the lapse of time for filing objections to the preliminary voters list, Ext.P10 objection was filed and that the same was accepted. However, it is stated that without considering the objections raised in Ext.P10 filed by the petitioner, the first respondent published the final voters list on 30.7.2009. In the final voters list, 5323 members, who had not paid share value until then were excluded. In this writ petition what the petitioner submits is that, so long as individual notices as contemplated under Section 11(2) of the Act have not been given to the members requiring them to pay the enhanced share value, irrespective of whether payment has been made or not, all members of the society are entitled to exercise their voting rights in the elections scheduled on 16.8.2009.

7. The counsel for the Bank submits that, the petitioner did not file a valid objection to the preliminary voters list. It is stated that, going by the schedule fixed in Ext.P1, objections ought to have been filed before 4 p.m on 28.7.2009, that Ext.P10 objection dated 29.7.2009 was admittedly filed only on