Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: T.R.Harikumar, Arjun Raghavan, C.M.Nazar, Liji.J.Vadakedom
For the Respondent: Liji J Vadakkedom, Sri.C.M.Nazar, Sri.T.R.Harikumar

Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and findings are as follows:

1. The scope of the explanation to Rule 35A(4A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules is limited to clarifying the exercise of the right to vote, specifically regarding the eligibility to be included in the voters list. It does not extend to other restrictions imposed by bye-laws (!) (!) .

2. The main Rule 35A(4) pertains to the preparation and finalization of the voters list, and the explanation to sub-rule (4A) is intended solely to elucidate this aspect, not to modify or extend the restrictions imposed by bye-laws (!) (!) .

3. Restrictions in bye-laws, such as limitations on the number of consecutive terms a member can serve on the managing committee, are valid if they are consistent with the Act and Rules. Bye-law provisions that restrict contesting elections beyond a certain number of terms are enforceable and do not conflict with the explanation to Rule 35A(4A) (!) (!) .

4. The interpretation of explanations in Rules must be to clarify and not to broaden or restrict the substantive provisions. An explanation cannot be used to add restrictions beyond what is explicitly provided in the main rule (!) (!) .

5. The legality of the rejection of a nomination based on bye-law restrictions, such as serving more than three consecutive terms, is upheld when such restrictions are valid and properly applied. The fact that a member previously contested elections without raising the restriction does not alter its validity (!) (!) .

6. The provisions in the bye-laws, including restrictions on contesting elections, are not contrary to the Act or Rules when they are within the scope of the powers granted by the bye-laws and the relevant statutory provisions (!) (!) .

7. The court emphasizes that the proper interpretation of the rules and bye-laws is essential, and restrictions imposed by bye-laws that are consistent with the Act and Rules are enforceable. The scope of explanations should be harmonized with the main provisions without expanding or contracting their meaning (!) (!) (!) .

8. The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the rejection of the nomination, confirming that restrictions on consecutive terms are valid and that the bye-laws' provisions are not contrary to the statutory framework (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal reasoning confirms that explanations to Rules are meant for clarification regarding specific aspects like voter eligibility, and do not alter the fundamental restrictions or provisions imposed by bye-laws, provided such bye-law restrictions are consistent with the Act and Rules.