JUDGMENT M.S. Menon, J. 1. The four petitioners before us and respondents 7, 8 and 9 were nominated as Directors of a Cooperative Society -- the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills Limited -- by Respondent No. 1, the Director of Handlooms, Trivandrum. His Proceedings in that behalf is Ext. P. 1 dated 19-10-1957 : "1. Under transitory bye law under bye law 12 of the bye laws of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill Ltd., the Director of Handlooms is pleased to nominate the following gentlemen as the first set of Directors of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill Ltd. for a period of three years from 1-11-1957. 1. Sri. P. M. Kunhi Raman Nambiar, M. L. A. (Respondent 7) 2. Sri. P. Govinda Menon, B. B., B. L., President, Malabar District Cooperative Bank Ltd. (Respondent No. 9) 3. Sri. N. K. Balakrishnan, President, Nileswar Weavers' Cooperative Society Ltd. (Petitioner No. 1) 4. Sri. M. Mohammed, Proprietor, 'Cheaper Stores' Cannanore. (Petitioner No. 2) 5. Sri.K. T. Sreedharan, Cannanore (Petitioner No. 3) 6. Sri. C. P. Krishnan Nair, Ravikrishna Mills, Azhikode. (Petitioner No. 4) 7. Sri. P. Kumaran, Vishnu Weaving Works, Cannanore. (Respondent No. 8) 2. Sri P. M. Kunhi Raman Nambiar (Respondent No. 7) is nominated as the Chairman of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd." 2. Bye law No. 12 of the Bye laws of the Society (Ext. P. 2) reads as follows: "The Management of the 'Mills shall vest in a board of Directors consisting of the following members:-- i) Three Directors to be elected by the delegates of the Primary Weavers Cooperative Societies and other Cooperative Institutions, ii) One Director elected by the Private Handloom Factories, iii) One Director elected by the individual members, iv) The Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Ex officio) Director, v) The Director of Handlooms Madras - Ex officio Director, vi) One person nominated by the Kerala Government from among persons connected with the Cotton spinning industry, vii) One person to be coopted by the Board of Directors of the Mills with reference to the needs of the Mills and the Handloom Industry. The members of the Board shall elect from among themselves the Chairman"; and the Transitory Bye law under Bye law No. 12 : "Notwithstanding anything contained in these bye laws, the Registrar may nominate a set of Directors including the Chairman for a period of 3 years from a date to be fixed by him. It shall be open to the Registrar to nominate the Directors for a further period not exceeding 2 years, if in his opinion such a course is necessary in the interest of the Mills. The Registrar may at any time terminate the nomination of any Director and nominate another in his place. Any vacancy that arises in the nominated Board shall be filled up by the Registrar by nomination for the rest of the period". 3. It is common ground that Respondent No. 1 is the "Registrar" competent to effect a nomination under the Transitory Bye law. 4. On 10-11-1957 the Director of Handlooms issued the following Proceedings: "In the proceedings first cited (Ext. P. 1) the Director of Handlooms nominated the first set of Directors of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills for a period of three years from 1-11-1957. In the Government Proceedings second cited (IA. 2-3249/57 dated 23-10-'57) Government were pleased to sanction the post of a Cooperative Sub-Registrar to the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill to attend to the collection of share capital and other preliminary items of work. In the light of the Government order Director considers that the nominated Directors may assume charge after the preliminary arrangements for the establishment of the Mill are completed. The proceedings cited as item 1 (Ext. P. 1) will therefore be kept in abeyance until further orders" (Ext. P. 3) His covering letter of the same date addressed to the Chairman (Respondent No. 7) was in the following terms: "I enclose a copy of the Proceedings dated 10-11-1957 (Ext. P. 3) keeping in abeyance my proceedings dated 19-10-1957 (Ext. P. 1) in which the Directors are nominated, as I feel that it is better that the first set of Directors to be nominated assume office after all preliminary arrangements are completed. I am sure there will be no misunderstanding on this account. I shall be going over to Cannanore in the last week of this month when I shall discuss with you further about the preliminary arrangements to be made for the Mill. I am sure there will be no misunderstanding on this account. I shall be going over to Cannanore in the last week of this month when I shall discuss with you further about the preliminary arrangements to be made for the Mill. The Cooperative Sub-Registrar sanctioned by Government will be joining duty shortly". (Ext. P. 4) 5. On 25-1-1958 Respondent No. 1 issued three Proceedings Exts. P. 5, P. 6 and P. 7. Ext. P. 5 reads : "Since the nomination of the first set of Directors in the proceedings first cited (Ext. P. 1) representations were received from the handloom workers and the Kerala Handloom Weavers' Cooperative Society that due representations may be given in the Board of Management of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill for the various interests connected with the Handloom Industry. It has, therefore become necessary that the Board nominated in the proceedings cited as item (i) (Ext. P. 1) and ordered to be kept in abeyance in the proceedings cited as (2) (Ext. P. 3) should be reconstituted, so that the Kerala H. W. C. S. (which is the central society for the entire Malabar and Kasargode area) the workers, etc. may get due representation. With this end in view and under Transitory bye laws under bye law (12) of the bye laws of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill, the Director of Handlooms hereby terminates the nomination of Sri M. Mohammed (Petitioner No. 2) K. T. Sreedharan (Petitioner No. 3) C. P. Krishnan Nair (Petitioner No. 4) P. Kumaran (Respondent No. 8) N. K. Balakrishnan (Petitioner No. 1)"; Ext. P. 6: "In view of the representations received from the workers, the Kerala Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society etc. requesting due representations in the Board of Management of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill, it has become necessary that the Board of Management nominated in the proceedings dated 19-10-1957 (Ext. P. 1) should be reconstituted. Under Transitory Bye law under bye law 12 of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills, the Director of Handlooms nominates the following gentlemen to the Board of Management of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill in the vacancies caused by the termination of nomination of the gentlemen referred to in the proceedings cited as item (3) (Ext. P. 5) 1. Dr. T. P. Balakrishnan, President Civic Association, Cannanore (Respondent No. 2). 2. K. P. Kumaran, Chirakkal Taluk Handloom Workers' Union, Cannanore (Respondent No. 3). 3. P. 5) 1. Dr. T. P. Balakrishnan, President Civic Association, Cannanore (Respondent No. 2). 2. K. P. Kumaran, Chirakkal Taluk Handloom Workers' Union, Cannanore (Respondent No. 3). 3. C. K. Anandan, Kakkat, Cannanore (Respondent No. 4). 4. V. P. Muhammed Hajee, Kakkat, Cannanore (Respondent No. 5). 5. P. Chathu, President, Kerala H. W. C. S. Kozhikode (Respondent No. 6)"; and Ext. P. 7 : "Under Transitory bye law under bye law 12 of the bye laws of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills and in modification of the proceedings first cited (Ext. P. 1), Dr. T. P. Balakrishnan, is nominated as chairman of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill". 6. The covering letter addressed to the Directors whose nominations were terminated was in the following terms : "On account of various representations received from the Handloom Workers and the Kerala Handloom Weavers' Cooperative Society (which is a central society for the entire Malabar and Kasargode area), it has become necessary to reconstitute the Board of Management issued in my proceedings dated 19-10-1957 (Ext. P. 1) and kept in abeyance as per my proceedings dated 10-11-1957 (Ext. P. 3). The nomination of some Directors has to be terminated so that due representation may be given for the various interests connected with the Handloom Industry. In the interests of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mill, which is the first of its kind in the whole Kerala State, and also in the larger interests of the cooperative movement, I sincerely trust that you will not misunderstand the proceedings regarding the termination. I need hardly state that the termination may not be construed as a disregard of your status or personality and that your hearty cooperation will always be available for the successful working of the Mill". (Ext. P. 8) 7. The prayer in the petition is that Exts. P. 5, P. 6 and P. 7 be quashed by an appropriate writ or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. There can be no doubt that the Registrar is competent to terminate any nomination made by him. This is specifically stated in the Transitory Bye law under Bye law No. 12: "The Registrar may at any time terminate the nomination of any Director and nominate another in his place". 9. All that the Registrar has done is to terminate the nominations of Petitioners 1 to 4 and Respondent No. 8 by Ext. This is specifically stated in the Transitory Bye law under Bye law No. 12: "The Registrar may at any time terminate the nomination of any Director and nominate another in his place". 9. All that the Registrar has done is to terminate the nominations of Petitioners 1 to 4 and Respondent No. 8 by Ext. P. 5 and nominate in their places Respondents 2 to 6 by Ext. P. 6. Such being the case the only further question that really arises for consideration is whether the exercise of the power under the Transitory Bye law is vitiated by malafides or the violation of natural justice as contended by the petitioners before us. 10. The allegation of malafides is stated as follows in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit in support of the petition : "The petitioners learn that the resolutions mentioned in the order of the 1st respondent were only contrivances to introduce communists on the Board of Management and to give them complete control over the Mills by giving them absolute majority. In the first set of Directors nominated by the first respondent there was no communist. It is learnt that the Communist Party moved Sri K. P. Gopalan, the Minister for Industries, who belongs to Cannanore area and on the pretext of the above mentioned resolution got the Minister to influence the 1st respondent to keep in abeyance his order dated 19-10-1957 nominating the petitioners and respondents 7 to 9 as Directors and afterwards to reconstitute the Board by terminating the nomination of the petitioners and respondent 8 and by nominating respondents 2 to 6 as Directors and respondent 2 as Chairman", (paragraph 2) "By the reconstitution the communists have obtained absolute control over the management of the Mills and the reconstitution has been brought about with that motive only", (paragraph 9) "The reconstitution of the Board in the manner it has been done is malafide, unjust, and prompted by unconscionable motive and in utter disregard of the interests of Mill", (paragraph 10) 11. The 1st respondent has denied the allegations. He has stated as follows in paragraph 12 of his affidavit dated 6-3-1958 : "The petitioners have tried to give a political colour to the action taken by me. The 1st respondent has denied the allegations. He has stated as follows in paragraph 12 of his affidavit dated 6-3-1958 : "The petitioners have tried to give a political colour to the action taken by me. The allegations of the petitioners that I allowed myself to be influenced by the ruling party and that it was to give the Communist Party full control over the Mill, that the five fresh Directors were nominated are all untrue and they are denied " and in paragraph 13: "The termination of the nomination of 5 Directors and nomination of 5 others in their place was done by me in all good faith and in the interests of the Mill. The allegations that I was prompted by improper motives and that I allowed my discretion to be substituted by the discretion of the Minister of Industries are all without any basis and they are repudiated". 12. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit dated 14-3-1958 the 1st petitioner said: "I reiterate that the respondents 2 to 6 were nominated under the influence of the Minister for Industries. The Minister did express dissatisfaction to the 7th respondent that there was no communist on the Board and he had mentioned the names of respondents 2 to 6 to the 7th respondent even before they were nominated". This was denied in paragraph 5 of the 1st respondent's affidavit dated 9-6-1923 : "The allegations in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that the respondents 2 to 6 were nominated by me on the influence of the Minister for Industries, is not true. The said nomination was made by me in the exercise of my powers bona fide and in the best interest of the Institution. To my knowledge the Minister did not express dissatisfaction as stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit". 13. In the light of these allegations and denials counsel for the petitioners frankly conceded that the material before us is not sufficient to come to a positive finding on the question of improper motives and confined the case to the contention that there was an absence of due care and caution in passing Exts. P. 5, P. 6 and P. 7. In AIR 1958 Pepsu is it was stated that even though no dishonest motive can be imputed, an order may yet be malafide "if it is bad for want of necessary care and caution". P. 5, P. 6 and P. 7. In AIR 1958 Pepsu is it was stated that even though no dishonest motive can be imputed, an order may yet be malafide "if it is bad for want of necessary care and caution". According to S.52 of the Indian Penal Code : "Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' which is done or believed without due care and attention" and according to S.3(22) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 : "a thing shall be deemed to be done in 'good faith' where it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not". From the papers before us it would appear that the 1st respondent was satisfied after enquiry that the changes effected by him should be effected and it is not possible to hold that there has been as a matter of fact any lack of care or caution. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to decide whether a thing done honestly should none the less be considered as mala fide because it was done negligently and without due care or caution. 14. The contention of the petitioners based on natural justice postulates a right to be heard before the nominations were terminated and a denial of that right. The functions of the 1st respondent under the Transitory Bye law do not appear to be anything other than executive in character and the canon of natural justice invoked by the petitioners has never been applied to purely administrative actions. 1958 KLT 334 deals with the matter as follows: "The second of the two contentions raised relates to the violation of a canon of natural justice. In passing purely executive orders, in the absence of statutory provisions, there seems to be no such canon in existence. In AIR 1956 Bombay 300 Chagla, C. J., dealing with an order under S.37 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, said: 'Now, the order complained of and the order that has got to be made under S.37 is clearly an administrative order and it would be erroneous to import into the consideration of an administrative order the principles of natural justice." 15. It has also to be noted that the nominations were terminated not for any default of the nominees concerned but only because the 1st respondent in the exercise of an administrative discretion came to the conclusion that the fresh nominees were better suited to serve the interest of the institution. In other words, nothing alleged to the detriment of the petitioners and Respondent No. 8 or any accusation made against them was the foundation of the action taken. 16. There is a very interesting article on the right to a hearing in English Administrative Law by Professor S. A. de Smith in Volume 68 (1954-55) of the Harvard Law Review, pages 569-599. He deals with the expression as follows: "The term expresses the close relationship between the common law and moral principles, and it has an impressive ancestory. That no man is to be judged unheard was a precept known to the Greeks, inscribed in ancient times upon images in places where justice was administered, proclaimed in Seneca's Medea, enshrined in the Scriptures, embodied in Germanic proverbs, ascribed in the Year Books to the law of nature, asserted by Coke to be a principle of divine justice, and traced by an eighteenth-century judge to the events in the Garden of Eden." The eighteenth century judge referred to is Fortescue, J. The decision is reprinted in 93 English Reports 698. 17. Of the cases dealt with in the article the cases nearest to the one before us are those relating to the deprivation of offices and other dignities. Those decisions make it abundantly clear that even when action is taken as a punishment the right to a hearing is confined to offices and dignities which are either freehold or determinable only for cause and not at pleasure. The article deals with this line of cases as follows : "Here the starting point is 1615, when James Bagg, a chief burgess of Plymouth, who had been disfranchised for singularly unbecoming conduct, was reinstated by mandamus because he had been removed without notice or hearing. In 1723 mandamus issued to restore Dr. Bentley to his accademic degrees in the University of Cambridge, of which he had been deprived by the University without a summons. In 1723 mandamus issued to restore Dr. Bentley to his accademic degrees in the University of Cambridge, of which he had been deprived by the University without a summons. It became established with respect to offices that removal had to be preceded by notice and hearing if the office was a freehold or was to be forfeited only for cause, but not if there was a discretionary power to remove the holder at pleasure." 18. In 83 E. R. 413 a town clerk removable without cause was removed without an opportunity being given to him to present his case. The removal was challenged and a mandamus was sought to restore him to his post. The Judges said : "It is to no purpose to summon him to answer, whom they may remove without a crime'' 19. In 115 E. R. 257 a Bye law providing for a hearing was held to be ultra vires of the Charter which conferred on the governors full power of removal of school masters according to their sound discretion. The court said : "We are clearly of opinion that this objection is fatal to the validity of the bye law. We are far from saying that persons in authority ought not to give the fullest opportunity of defence to any of those employed under them, whom they may be disposed to remove on complaint preferred by others against them for misconduct. But they accept a larger trust, and impose on themselves a wider duty, when they undertake to govern the school in the manner required by his charter. They are bound to remove any master whom, according to their sound discretion, they think unfit and improper for the office : and, as that discretion may possibly be well exercised for defects of various kinds not amounting to misconduct, so there may be misconduct, incapable of proof by witnesses, but fully known to the governors themselves, on which they could not abstain from exercising their power of removing the master without the abandonment of their duty." 20. In 1954 SCA 620 (626) Mukherjea, J., said : "One of the fundamental principles in regard to the issuing of a writ of certiorari, is, that the writ can be availed of only to remove or adjudicate on the validity of judicial acts. In 1954 SCA 620 (626) Mukherjea, J., said : "One of the fundamental principles in regard to the issuing of a writ of certiorari, is, that the writ can be availed of only to remove or adjudicate on the validity of judicial acts. The expression 'judicial acts' includes the exercise of quasi judicial functions by administrative bodies or other authorities or persons obliged to exercise such functions and is used in contrast with what are purely ministerial acts". 21. In 10 Cambridge Law Journal 216 Professor Wade dealt with the epithet 'quasi judicial' as follows : "The epithet 'quasi judicial' has become familiar, if not popular, in administrative law. It is commonly used to describe certain kinds of powers wielded by ministers or government departments but subject to a degree of judicial control in the manner of their exercise. Generally speaking, it is applied to powers which can be exercised only when certain facts have been found to exist, and it indicates that these facts must be found in conformity with a code of rules called 'natural justice' " 22. It is impossible to say that there is any element of a judicial or quasi judicial character in the functions of the Registrar under the Transitory Bye law under Bye law No. 12 and it must follow that his actions under that Bye law are not amenable to review or correction under Art.226 of the Constitution. 23. In the light of what is stated above this petition must fail and has to be dismissed. Order accordingly, though in the circumstances of the case without any direction as to costs. O.P.No. 83 of 1958. This is a petition filed by the 7th respondent in O. P. No. 82 of 1958. The 1st respondent is the Director of Handlooms, Trivandrum, and the 2nd, Dr. T. P. Balakrishnan, Cannanore. 2. The petitioner was nominated as the Chairman of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd.by Ext. P. 1 (19-10-1957). That nomination was superseded and the 2nd respondent was nominated as the Chairman by Ext. P. 7 (25-1-1958). 3. The prayer in the petition is that this court should : "quash the order of the 1st respondent G. 1-2763/57 dated 25-1-1958 (Ext. P. 7) nominating the 2nd respondent as Chairman of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills, Ltd., and pass such other orders or directions as are appropriate to the facts of the case". 4. P. 7 (25-1-1958). 3. The prayer in the petition is that this court should : "quash the order of the 1st respondent G. 1-2763/57 dated 25-1-1958 (Ext. P. 7) nominating the 2nd respondent as Chairman of the Cannanore Cooperative Spinning Mills, Ltd., and pass such other orders or directions as are appropriate to the facts of the case". 4. This petition was heard along with O. P. No. 82 of 1958. The petitioner's nomination as a member of the Board has not been terminated and the only fresh contention urged in this petition was that the 1st respondent had no power under the Transitory Bye law to terminate the nomination of a chairman. The ground is specified as follows in the petition : "The transitory bye law under bye law No. 12 of the bye laws does not authorise the 1st respondent to terminate the nomination of the Chairman and nominate a new Chairman". 5. Under the Transitory Bye law under Bye law No. 12 the Registrar has the power to "nominate a set of directors including the Chairman". The power of removal is normally implicit in the power of appointment and we do not see any reason to hold that the Registrar who has been invested with the power of nomination should not also be deemed to have the power of terminating a nomination made by him. In these circumstances this petition also has to be dismissed and we direct accordingly though in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.