Facts:

The petitioners, being the members of the sixth respondent Society, laid challenge against Exhibit P2 amended bye-laws and also Exhibit P1 election notification on two grounds:

(a) In contravention of the third proviso to Section 28 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'), the Society has divided its area into six wards instead of eleven, the total number of wards; and (b) despite the statutory mandate that the Society should maintain a Form 32 Register in terms of Rule 18A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short 'the Rules'), it is going to hold election without maintaining any register.

Rival Submissions:

Petitioners':

2. In the above brief factual backdrop, Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to the third proviso to Section 28(1) of the Act to hammer home his contention that if eleven members have to be elected to the Managing Committee, inclusive of the reserved categories, the area of the Society ought to have been divided into eleven wards. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Mathai v. State Co-operative Election Commission, 2007 (2) KLT789.

3. The learned counsel has, drawing my attention to Rule 18A of the Rules, further contended that the provision is imperative in nature: The Society ought to maintain Form 32 Register so that any member of the Society could verify the status of a member--whether he is active or inactive as per Section 16A of the Act.

Respondent Society's:

4. Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent Society, has submitted that Section 28 underwent an amendment on 14.02.2013, when the third proviso was added. According to him, though the division of the area should be on a ward basis, it should be as has been reflected in the bye-laws. According to him, the bye-laws take precedence.

5. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has contended that, in the present instance, the general body of the Society passed a resolution that there should be six wards for the candidates from the general category and the women and SC/ST members should be contesting without reference to any ward--taking the entire area as one ward ('non-ward' basis).

6. The learned counsel has further contended that there is no whisper in the pleadings that the petitioners raised their objections in the general body meeting, but they were disregarded. He has also, further, contended that after the issuance of the notification, at the eleventh hour, when the election was about to be held, the petitioners approached this Court without exhausting their alternative remedies under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act.

7. In support of his submission that candidates from the reserved category could contest without confining themselves to any particular ward, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a learned Division Bench in Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. S.Sasidharan Pillai, 2012 (1) KLT350 (DB).

8. Addressing the issue of the Society not maintaining Form 32 Register, the learned counsel has submitted that the issue as regards active members has already engaged the attention of a learned Full Bench of this Court. According to him, it is at best a technical objection which prejudices the cause of no member, apart from being sub judice.

Department's:

9. Sri.D.Somasundaram, the learned Special Government Pleader, has taken me through the statutory scheme of the Act and also the constitutional principles involved in the reservation of seats for women, candidates from SC/ST communities, and also the depositors. Initially, he has drawn my attention to Article 243-ZJ of the Constitution to stress that the reservation has been constitutionally protected. Further, he has referred to Section 28A and 28(1C) of the Act to emphasize that all along those provisions have contemplated in mandatory terms that there ought to be a reservation, but not the division of wards,