Ashok Bhushan, C.J.

This writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner against judgment and order dated 25.11.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 15917 of 2015 by which judgment the writ petition has been dismissed. Brief facts giving rise to this writ appeal are :

The 1st respondent Irinjalakuda Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. (for brief Bank) had been originally registered with an area of operation comprised of Mukundapuram and Kodungalloor Taluk. By Act 1 of 2000 Section 2(oc) was inserted in Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which defines the Primary Co- operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank to be Societies having its area of operation confined to 'a Taluk'. Consequently, the 1st respondent Bank was bifurcated into two namely the Irinjalakuda Bank and Kodungalloor Bank. The State Government formed 12 Taluks in the year 2013 among which one of the newly formed Taluk was Chalakkudy Taluk, by bifurcating the area of Mukundapuram Taluk. Consequent to the formation of a new Taluk out of Mukundapuram Taluk, it became statutorily necessary to bifurcate the existing 1st respondent Bank.

2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an order dated 23.04.2015 directing all the President/Secretary of the Bank and Joint Registrar/Special Officer/Assistant Registrar to take steps for bifurcation of existing bank which have area of operation of more than one Taluk. Along with the order of Registrar dated 23.04.2015 a draft scheme for bifurcation was also circulated. A meeting of the general body of the Bank was convened on 09.05.2015. The general body adopted a resolution for bifurcation of the Bank's assets and liabilities. Prior to the holding of general body, notice was issued in the newspaper. The petitioner who is also a member of the 1st respondent Bank participated in the meeting held on 09.05.2015. The petitioner in the meeting raised objection regarding the 'last clause' of Ext.P1 Scheme which provided that assets other than those mentioned in the Scheme if any, would be divided among the 1st respondent Bank and the proposed Chalakkudy Bank in the ratio 60:40. The scheme was put to vote and was voted in favour of the last clause.

3. The petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court praying for the following Reliefs :

"i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to issue appropriate direction to the 1st respondent to effect the division of the 1st respondent strictly in the manner provided under Rule 13 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules;

ii) Declare that the general body meeting convened on 7.5.2015 which approved Ext. P1 is in violation of Rule 13 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and therefore void.

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to require the 1st respondent to convene a general body for the purpose of bifurcation of the assets strictly in accordance with Rule 13 of the Co-operative Societies Rules before bifurcating the assets of the 1st respondent;

iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5, in accordance with law forthwith.""

4. During the pendency of the writ petition meeting dated 06.06.2015 was held, where draft bye-laws of the proposed Bank was approved. In the Writ Petition counter affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent giving sequence of events and justifying the resolution dated 09.05.2015 of the general body. A counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents through the Special Government Pleader opposing the prayers made in the writ petition. It was pleaded that in view of the formation of new Chalakkudy Bank by culling out the area of 1st respondent, bifurcation of 1st respondent Bank was a statutory compulsion and a Special Officer was already appointed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who, as per communication dated 23.04.2015, took steps.