Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in this case is a member of the Nadakkal Service Co-operative Society Ltd. The said Society is affiliated to the Quilon District Co-operative Bank Ltd. The Bye-laws of the District Co-operative Bank Ltd., is marked in this case as Ext. P1. Bye-law No. 21 is concerned with the management of the Bank by the Board of Directors and Bye-law No. 27 with the constitution of the Board of Directors. There are 11 members in the Board of Director. The Kerala State Co-operative Bank is to nominate 3 members and the remaining 8 members have to be elected by a meeting of the General Body and at such meeting one Director representing the primary societies in each taluk is to be elected. Ext. P2 is a copy of the rules for election to the Board of Directors of the Quilon District Co-operative Bank Ltd. The General Body of the members consisting of the affiliated Co-operative institutions and the individual shareholders would form a single constituency and it shall elect the required number of Directors to the Board of Directors of the Bank. The petitioner filed his nomination paper as a candidate for election to the Board of Directors representing the primary societies in Pathanapuram taluk. The nomination paper was duly accepted and the petitioner was nominated as a candidate. There was only one opposing candidate and he is the 2nd respondent in this petition. The petitioner was declared duly elected by the 3rd respondent. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed a petition before the 1st respondent, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, under S.60 of the Cooperative Societies Act for setting aside the election of the petitioner and for a declaration that the 2nd respondent was duly elected. The 1st respondent passed Ext. P9 order setting aside the election of the petitioner and declaring the 2nd respondent as duly elected. The petitioner questions the validity of this order. 2. The main grounds alleged by the petitioner for impeaching Ext. The 1st respondent passed Ext. P9 order setting aside the election of the petitioner and declaring the 2nd respondent as duly elected. The petitioner questions the validity of this order. 2. The main grounds alleged by the petitioner for impeaching Ext. P9 order were, (1) that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the 2nd respondent for setting aside the election of the petitioner and for declaring the 2nd respondent as duly elected, as under S.60 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent was limited to disputes touching the business of the society, and that this was not a matter touching the business of the society, and (2) that the finding of the 1st respondent that the petitioner could not represent the primary societies in the Taluk of Pathanapuram is wrong. 3. As regards the first contention, petitioner's counsel referred me to the ruling reported in Gokul Prasad v. Laxmansingh (AIR. 1962 M.P. 265), and submitted that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the question related to the election to the Board of Directors of the District Co-operative Bank, and as this is not a matter touching the business of a society. AIR. 1962 M.P. 262 no doubt takes the view that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards the validity of an election of a chairman of the Board of Directors of a Co-operative Bank. But the Madras High Court in Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao (AIR. 1954 Madras 103) has taken a contrary view, holding that the jurisdiction of the Registrar under S.60 of the Cooperative Societies Act would extend to the resolution of a dispute relating to the election of the Directors of a Co-operative Bank registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. In Lakshmiah v. S.P.T.C.M. Society Ltd. (AIR. 1962 Madras 169) Rajamannar, C.J., observed: "The appellant is not without remedy. He can seek redress under S.31 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act of 1932 which provides for the decision of any disputes touching the business of registered Societies by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. A full Bench of this Court in Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao (ILR.1953 Mad. 1047 = AIR. 1954 Mad. He can seek redress under S.31 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act of 1932 which provides for the decision of any disputes touching the business of registered Societies by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. A full Bench of this Court in Madhava Rao v. Surya Rao (ILR.1953 Mad. 1047 = AIR. 1954 Mad. 103 F. B.), held that a dispute relating to the election of Directors of a Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act is one touching the business of the bank within the meaning of S.51 of the Act. A recent decision of Jagadisan, J., has extended the scope of S.51 of the Act so as to include a dispute regarding the validity of a nomination of a candidate for election to the Board of Directors of a registered Society. The ratio decidendi of the Full Bench decision in Muthuvelappa Gounder v. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1960-2 Mad. L.J. 393 at p. 397 was applied to a dispute as to the validity of a nomination. He observed as follows: It is not possible to dissociate the stage of nomination from the stage of return of the candidate after polling and declaration of the results, in such a manner as to import the notion of business of society only to the latter stage of election, and not to the former stage of nomination. In fact the whole process of election commences from the stage of nomination and the word election has been considered as including nomination also in its wide sense of the term.' We are in entire agreement with this view of the learned judge. The appellant can therefore challenge the rejection of his nomination by the Board of Directors before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies." I prefer to follow the decisions in AIR. 1954 Madras 103 and AIR. 1962 Madras 169. In this view I hold that the 1st respondent had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the 2nd respondent for setting aside the election of the petitioner. 4. The second contention of the petitioner's counsel was that there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record in that the 1st respondent held that the petitioner could not represent the primary societies in the Pathanapuram taluk. 4. The second contention of the petitioner's counsel was that there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record in that the 1st respondent held that the petitioner could not represent the primary societies in the Pathanapuram taluk. The 1st respondent held that the petitioner was a delegate representing the Nadakkal Co-operative Society Ltd., No. 1874 in the Quilon Taluk and that he was not qualified to be elected as a representative of the Pathanapuram taluk. He has referred me to Bye-law No. 26 of the Quilon District Co-operative Bank Ltd., which reads as follows: "Constitution of the Board: The Kerala State Co-operative Bank, which is to purchase shares of the Bank out of the funds provided by the Government under the State Partnership Scheme shall have the right to nominate three members of the Board. The other members of the Board shall be elected at a meeting of the General Body as follows: 1. One Director representing Primary Societies in each Taluk..." The question for consideration was whether the petitioner was qualified to be elected as a representative of Pathnapuram Taluk. Bye-law No. 26 (1) refers to "one director representing primary societies in each taluk." In order that the petitioner may get a representative character, he must be either elected by the societies in the particular taluk if the electorate is confined to societies of the taluk or he must be a delegate from one of the societies of the taluk. In this case as the electorate consists of all the eligible affiliated institutions and individual share holders of the entire District, to satisfy Bye-law No. 26 (1), i. e. to be a Director representing primary societies in a taluk, one must necessarily be a delegate of an eligible affiliated co-operative primary society in that taluk. As the petitioner was not a delegate representing a primary society in Pathanapuram taluk he was not qualified to stand as a candidate to represent the Pathanapuram taluk. This is the view taken by the 1st respondent. It cannot be said that this view is prima facie erroneous. I therefore hold that the order does not disclose an error of law apparent on the face of the record which can be corrected by the issuance of a writ of certiorari. 8. This is the view taken by the 1st respondent. It cannot be said that this view is prima facie erroneous. I therefore hold that the order does not disclose an error of law apparent on the face of the record which can be corrected by the issuance of a writ of certiorari. 8. It was argued by counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent had no jurisdiction to declare the 2nd respondent as duly elected even if he had got the jurisdiction to set aside the election of the petitioner. I do not think there is much substance in this contention. Once it is assumed that the Registrar had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the ground that the question touched the business of the Society there can be no doubt that he had the necessary jurisdiction to declare the 2nd respondent as duly elected. I hold that there is no ground for interfering with the order passed by the 1st respondent. I dismiss the petition but without any order as to costs. Dismissed.