SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P3, P4 and P5 and for other related reliefs. Brief facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner was the President of the 4th respondent Bank. The area of operation of the 4th respondent was confined to Mukundapuram Taluk. On and with effect from 28.05.2013, a new Taluk was created namely Chalakudy Taluk, carving out areas from Mukundapuram Taluk by the State Government. Consequent to the formation of new Taluk, bifurcation of the assets and liabilities of 4th respondent for the purpose of creation of a new Bank in the newly created Taluk necessitated. It is the contention of the petitioner that, Sec.14 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 [hereinafter called 'the Act'], read with Rule 13 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter called 'the Rules'] lay down the procedure for bifurcation of assets and liabilities.

3. Accordingly, a resolution of the General Body of the 4th respondent, after obtaining prior approval of the Joint Registrar, has to decide with respect to the bifurcation. That apart, according to the petitioner, thereafter a notice should be issued to each and every member as also to the creditors within a period of two months and their options have to be obtained either to continue with the Bank or to opt out from membership.

4. It is also urged that, Sec.14(2) of the Act makes it clear that resolution passed by the General Body will not be effective till this statutory requirements are complied with. After notice to every member and every creditor, and after obtaining their consent, a report should be submitted to the Joint Registrar. The Joint Registrar after perusal of the report and on satisfaction that the procedure has been complied with, register the new society. Therefore, according to the petitioner, a new society can come into existence only in that manner.

5. That apart, it is contended that, General Body of the 4th respondent passed a resolution and thereafter nothing further, including notice to members and creditors has so far been issued. However, it is seen that the 3rd respondent stands registered and an election notification is issued for the conduct of election. According to the petitioner, membership of the 3rd respondent, newly created Bank, can be determined only after members exercising their option and the same is not done. Therefore, an election notification cannot be issued by the 1st respondent, is the contention advanced by the petitioner in this writ petition. That apart, it is also contended that, the entire exercise of registration of the 3rd respondent society is totally in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, and it is in this background, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

6. In fact, W.P. (C) No.2501 of 2016 was filed by one U.V. Thomas and another, challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Joint Registrar, and seeking to set aside Ext.P4 bye-law and Ext.P5 election notification. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioners. The 3rd respondent had filed a counter affidavit in the said writ petition, which is sought to be adopted as a counter affidavit in this writ petition by filing an adoption memo. The 3rd respondent has refuted the allegations and claims and demands made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

7. The prime contention of the 3rd respondent is that the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief in this writ petition as Exts.P3 and P4 are appealable under Sec.83(1)(j) of the Act and validity of Ext.P5 can be assailed under Sec.69 of the Act, and therefore according to the 3rd respondent, the writ petition itself is not maintainable under law.

8. It is also contended that, the 4th respondent Bank is defined under the Act as a society having its area of operation confined to a Taluk and the principal object of which is to provide long term credit for agricultural and rural development activit