A person becomes a 'defaulter' by merely having an order against himself, which is referred to in S.63, and whose liability he has not discharged.

M.A. Ansari, C.J.

1. The appellant who is a member of the Cheruvally Cooperative Society, seeks to set aside the election under the Cooperative Societies Act, of seven persons to the managing committee of the aforesaid society. These seven persons, on June 22, 1958, had been elected in the general body meeting, and two objections are taken to the aforesaid election being valid. The first of these had been raised before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies but it failed. The appellant then appealed to the Registrar, but was equally unsuccessful. Thereafter, he had invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226, but the learned Judge has rejected both. The first objection is that the authorisation to the Inspector of Cooperative Societies by the Deputy Registrar to convene the general body meeting was bad, because the latter officer on the day he gave the authorisation, was without power to do what the Registrar had under the Act, and the subsequent notification by the Government, authorising the Deputy Registrar to discharge some of the functions of the Registrar, including the power to do what the Deputy Registrar had done earlier, would not save the prior authorisation. The second objection is that four members of the newly elected managing committee were disqualified and could not stand for the election. Should we accept the second objection, it is clear that the election of the four members would alone be invalid, resulting in fresh election for their places.

2. We feel the second objection has force; for we think the earlier conduct of the person seeking writ, is always relevant, and the appellant, by not taking the objection to the Inspector's authority at the appropriate time, has precluded himself from making the objection a ground for the writ petition being allowed. To facilitate adjudication of the second objection regarding the disqualifications of the four members of the new committee, we would give the relevant provisions, on which it, rests.

3. S.63 of the Travancore - Cochin Cooperative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, reads:

"Every order passed by a liquidator under S.55, or by the Registrar under sub-s.(1) of S.58, or by the Registrar or his nominee or arbitrators on disputes referred to him or them under clause (f) of S.55, or under S.60, every order passed in appeal under S.50 and every order passed under S.69 shall, if not carried out;

(a) on a certificate signed by the Registrar or a liquidator, be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such a court;

(b) be executed according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for the recovery of arrears of land revenue, provided that any application for the recovery in such manner of such sum shall be made to the Collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Registrar or by any of his assistants to whom the said power has been delegated by the Registrar."

The relevant rules framed under the Act, read as follows:

"Rule 2. (c) "Decree" means any order referred to in S.63 of the Act.

x x x x

(e) 'Defaulter' means any person against whom a decree as defined in clause (c) has been obtained.

Rule 28. (1)-- No person shall be eligible for appointment as a member of the committee of any society, if he”

x x x x

(e) is in default to the society or to any other society in respect of any loan or loans taken by him or loan in which he has stood surety, for such period as is prescribed in the bye laws of the society concerned, or in any case for a period exceeding 3 months, or is a defaulter to the society or to any other society ..........".

The appellant's case concerning the four members being disqualified is that they are defaulters to the society, because they had not paid the amounts, which been obtained against them, by orders under S.60