JUDGMENT PADHYE J.-The petitioner No.2 is a Non-agricultural Credit and Industrial Co-operative Society in the district of Amravati and the petitioner No.1 is member thereof. This Society is formed of the employees of the respondent No.5 Amravati District Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd., Amravati, which is also a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner No.1 is an employee of the respondent No.5. 2. Elections to the Board of Directors of the respondent No.5 were held on 27-9-1966 and according to the constitution of the Board of Directors, the Non-agricultural Credit and Industrial Co-operative Societies in the district were to elect one Director to represent them. That is provided by the bye-law No.15 (1) (b) of the Bye-laws framed for the respondent No.5 Co-operative Society. The petitioner No.1 representing the petitioner No.2 Society of which he was a member, filed his nomination paper for the seat of a Director and he was opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the said seat. In that election, the petitioner No.1 was elected for the office of the Director of the respondent No.5 Bank. To the nomination of the petitioner No.1, the respondent No.1 Gopa1rao had raised an objection before the Returning Officer on 7-9-1966 to the effect that he was disqualified to be a candidate, for the Directorship of the respondent No.5 on the ground that he was an employee of the respondent No.5. This objection was overruled by the Returning Officer and the petitioner No. 1 after the result of the election was declared as duly elected to the office of the Director. 3. The respondent No.1 thereafter raised a dispute under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 raising the same objection. The Nominee of the Registrar overruled the objection of the respondent and held that the petitioner No.1 as the representative of the petitioner No.2 was validly elected. This order of the Registrars Nominee was challenged by the respondent No.1 before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, respondent No.6 in this petition, set aside the order of the Registrars Nominee and declared the election of the petitioner No.1 to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner No.1 being an employee of the Bank which is also a registered Society was incompetent to get himself elected to the office of the Director. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, respondent No.6 in this petition, set aside the order of the Registrars Nominee and declared the election of the petitioner No.1 to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner No.1 being an employee of the Bank which is also a registered Society was incompetent to get himself elected to the office of the Director. The order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay, is challenged by the petitioners by this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since the term for the office of the Director of the respondent No.5 Bank has now expired and fresh elections were to be held on 23rd of November 1969, the petition has become infructuous and it is not now, therefore, necessary to decide the question whether the petitioner No.1 was eligible to be elected as a Director of the Bank. We are, however, not informed if any election has actually taken place on the 23rd of November 1969 as previously fixed and as to the result of such an election, if any. It is also contended on behalf of the respondent No.1 that for the fresh elections which were to be held on 23-11-1969, the petitioner No.1 was not a candidate for the said office, but some other member of the petitioner No.2 had filed his nomination for the said elections and on that ground also this petition was not competent. We do not think that this petition should be thrown out only on this ground. Besides the petitioner No. 1 who was elected in the last election in the year 1966, there is another petitioner, namely, Amravati District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Co-operative Society, Limited Amravati and the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, if left to stand as it is the petitioner No.2 Society itself and all its members would be affected thereby, inasmuch as no member of the Society as the representative of that Society will ever be able to contest the election for the office of the Director of the respondent No.5-Bank. The question is a recurring question and will arise at the time of each election and it is necessary that the rights of the members of the said Society are decided finally and we, therefore, propose to consider the question as to whether the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal is a correct and legal order. 5. In Messrs Ghaio Mal and Sons v. State of Delhi1, a similar contention was raised that since the period of licence which was in dispute had already expired, the petition became infructuous. The dispute there was regarding the licence for the year 1954-55 which had long expired and when the matter came, up for hearing before the Supreme Court, it was suggested that the writ petition, and consequently the appeal, had become infructuous. The usual practice in the matters of granting licences was that once a licence in Form-L-2 was granted by the Chief Commissioner, it was almost automatically renewed by the Collector from year to year unless of course the licensee was found guilty of breach of any excise rule and that in such cases of renewal there arose no question of vacancy entitling any outside competitor to apply for a licence in. Form L-2. That being the position, the Supreme Court held that it was vitally important for the appellants that they should consider the validity of the grant of the L-2 licence for 1954-55, for in case of their holding that the order granting the same was a nullity on account of its not having been made by the competent authority, the vacancy caused by the closure of business by Messrs Army and Navy Stores will still remain to be filled up and the appellants will yet have a chance of having their application considered by the competent authority. The same principle would apply in this case, because if the order of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, as has been passed in the present case, is allowed to stand, then any member of the petitioner No.-2 Co-operative Society representing the said Co-operative Society will for ever be debarred from contesting an election for the office of the Director of the respondent No.5 Bank and it is for this purpose, it is necessary to decide the question whether the order passed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal is legal and correct. 6. 6. A "Co-operative Bank" is defined in section 2 (10) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and means a Society which is doing the business of banking as defined in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Banking Companies Act, 1949, and includes any Society which is functioning or is to function as a Land Development Bank under Chapter XI. The respondent No. 5 which is a Co-operative Bank is, therefore, a society. I "Society" has been defined in section 2 (27) of the Act as meaning a co-operative society registered, or deemed to be registered under this Act. The respondent No.5-Bank is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and is also a society within the meaning of this Act. "Bye-laws" in section 2 (5) means bye-laws registered under this Act and for the time being in force, and includes registered amendments of such bye-laws. Under section 8(1) of the Act, a society which desires to apply for registration as a Society has to make an application to the Registrar in the prescribed form and it has to be accompanied by four copies of the proposed bye-laws of the society. The Registrar then has to satisfy himself that the proposed society has complied with the provisions of the Act and the rules and that its proposed bye-laws are not contrary to this Act or the rules and thereupon he registers the society and its bye-laws. Thus the bye-laws which are proposed to be made by a society have to be approved and registered by the Registrar. Any amendments sought to be made to the, bye-laws are also required to be approved and registered by the Registrar. Under section 14 of the Act if the Registrar thinks that an amendment to the bye-laws of a society is necessary or desirable in the interest of the society, he can call upon the Society in the manner prescribed to make the amendment within such time as he may specify and if the society fails to make the amendment within the time specified, then the Registrar himself has the power to register such an amendment. It would thus appear that the bye-laws can be framed, and in fact have to be framed by a society under the Act itself and the same have to be; approved and then registered by the Registrar and the bye-laws will govern the conduct of the business of that particular society. Accordingly bye-laws were framed by the respondent No.5 Bank and were approved and registered by the Registrar and those bye-laws with the amendments from time to time are in force today and it would have to be seen whether the bye-laws prohibit an employee of the bank to contest an election as a representative of a society to the office of the Director of the Bank or whether the bye-laws permit such a candidature. The rules made under the Co-operative Societies Act, namely, the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, make provision as to the matters for which the society has to make the bye-laws. Rule 8 provides for the same. Rule 12 provides for the amendment of the bye-laws and rule 13 provides for the manner of calling upon a society to make amendment to the bye-laws. In rule 8 various matters have been given in respect of which the bye-laws have to be framed and in compliance with this rule the present bye-laws have been framed. 7. To a society under this Act the following persons can be admitted as members: (a) an individual, (b) a firm, company or any other body corporate constituted under any law for the time being in force, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (c) a society registered, or deemed to be registered, under this Act, (d) the State Government or the Central Government, (e) a local authority and (f) a public trust registered under any law for the time being in force for the registration of such trusts. Besides this, there are also other persons who may be admitted as a nominal, associate and sympathiser member under section 24 of the Act. It would thus be seen that the members of the respondent No.5-Bank can be individuals, firms, companies or any other corporate bodies or other societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the Society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, the State and the Central Government, any other local authority or public trust. It would thus be seen that the members of the respondent No.5-Bank can be individuals, firms, companies or any other corporate bodies or other societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the Society registered or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, the State and the Central Government, any other local authority or public trust. Section 23 of the Act provides for membership of a society and it enjoins upon a society not to refuse admission to membership to any person duly qualified therefor under the provisions of this Act and its bye-laws. Unless, therefore, there is a specific prohibition, the employees of the bank could also form a society. In fact, they have formed such a society which is the petitioner No.2 and no objection has been taken to its formation as being illegal or unauthorised so far. We, therefore, take it that the petitioner No.2 has been validly and properly formed and it is entitled to function as such society even though all the members of the society are the employees of the respondent No.5 Bank itself. 8. Under bye-law No.9 of the respondent Bank the same thing has been reiterated and clause (ii) gives the disqualifications for admission as a member to the Bank and the only disqualifications which we find in this clause are, that he has applied to be adjudicated an insolvent, or is an uncertified bankrupt or has been sentenced for any offence other than an offence of a political character, or an offence not involving moral turpitude, such sentence not having been reversed or the offence pardoned. Only such persons are not eligible for admission as a member to the Bank and if a person is not disqualified for the reasons given in clause (ii) of bye-law No.9, then even an employee of the Bank can be a member of the Bank and has a right to be admitted for such a membership. There is also no prohibition for any employee of the Bank to become a member of any other Society or to form a separate society. 9. Then the Bye-law No. 25 of the Bank provides for the constitution of the Board of Directors. I t consists of 24 members and the Directors hold office for a period of three years. There is also no prohibition for any employee of the Bank to become a member of any other Society or to form a separate society. 9. Then the Bye-law No. 25 of the Bank provides for the constitution of the Board of Directors. I t consists of 24 members and the Directors hold office for a period of three years. We need refer here only to the two clauses of Bye-law No. 25 (1), namely, clause (b) and clause (d). Under clause (b) of the said bye-law, the Board of Directors of the Bank has to consist of one Director representing non-agricultural credit and industrial co-operative societies in the district to be elected by such societies from amongst themselves, and under clause (d) five Directors representing individual share-holders are to be elected by such share-holders from amongst themselves provided that one Director each is elected from the five different constituencies mentioned therein. The petitioner No.2 which falls under clause (d) of Bye-law No. 25 (1) is entitled to have its representative sent on the Board of Directors and a representative member of this Society can get himself elected from amongst the various non-agricultural credit and industrial co-operative societies in the District and it was from this constituency that the petitioner No.1 had got himself elected to the office of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 5 Bank. Similarly, the individual share-holders of the respondent No.5 Bank could elect five amongst them to represent them on the Board of Directors. Clauses (vi) to (X) of Bye-law No. 25 are entitled as "Qualifications of Director", but in effect they provide for the disqualifications of a Director. The disqualifications that are given are that a representative of an affiliated society which has been classed D at the last audit shall not be entitled to become a member of the Board of Directors. Another disqualification is that no member in unauthorised arrears in the Bank or in any other affiliated societies operating in the area of the Bank or from whom dues are recovered by coercive measures shall continue to be the Director of the Bank. Third disqualification is that no paid officer or servant of any co-operative society operating within the area of the Bank shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a Director or as a Local Auditor of the Bank. Third disqualification is that no paid officer or servant of any co-operative society operating within the area of the Bank shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a Director or as a Local Auditor of the Bank. The next disqualification is that no individual member shall be eligible for being elected on the Board of Directors-(a) if he has not been a member of the Bank for at least one year prior to the date of his nomination for election as a director, or, (b) if he holds less than ten shares fully paid, or (c) if he has been convicted of a criminal offence or offences involving moral turpitude or (d) if he resigns by notice in writing. Clause (x) then provides that no person shall be eligible to be a candidate for Directorship on behalf of an affiliated society unless he has been member of the affiliated society for at least 12 months prior to the date of his nomination and is not a defaulter and the society of which he is a member is not in unauthorised arrears to the Bank. Leaving aside for the present the disputed clause No. (viii) of Bye-law No. 25, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner No. 1- was any of the disqualifications given in clauses (vi), (vii), (ix) and (x). The Bye-laws nowhere provide that an employee of the Bank cannot become a Director as an individual member. Clause (ix) which refers to the election of an individual member on the Board of Directors lays down that such a person must possess certain qualifications which are laid down in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) thereof and if he does not possess those qualifications, then he is disqualified or ineligible to be a Director of the Board. Clause (ix) or any other clause in the bye-laws itself does not prohibit an employee of the Bank who is also a member of the Bank to become a Director of the said Bank by election from amongst the members or share-holders of the said Bank. Clause (ix) or any other clause in the bye-laws itself does not prohibit an employee of the Bank who is also a member of the Bank to become a Director of the said Bank by election from amongst the members or share-holders of the said Bank. It is, however, contended on behalf of the respondent No.1, who alone is represented before us, that under clause (viii) of Bye-law No. 25(1), a person like the petitioner No.1, who is a paid servant of the respondent No.5 Bank is ineligible to be elected or nominated as a Director or the Bank. Clause (viii) reads as under: "Cl. (viii). No paid officer or servant of any co-operative society operating within the area of the Bank shall be eligible for being elected or nominated as a director or as a Local Auditor of the Bank." Bye-law No.1 provides that the area of the operation of the Bank extends to the whole of the Amravati District and it will have five regional offices at Amravati, Chandur Railway, Achalpur, Daryapur and Morshi. There is no dispute that the petitioner No.2-Society operates within the area of the Bank, so also the other Co-operative Societies whose representative being the petitioner No.1 was elected as a Director of the Bank. 10. Clause No. (xi) of Bye-law No. 25 authorises the Board of Directors of the respondent No.5 Bank to frame rules and regulations with the approval of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for the election of Directors representing co-operative societies and individual share-holders. In pursuance of this authority, the Board of Directors has framed rules for the purposes of the election to the office of the Board of Directors and rules 1 and 2 in Part I of these Rules give the qualifications for eligibility to the office of the Director. In the first place, the candidate must be a member of a co-operative society in the constituency from which he wants to contest and he must have been authorised by the society whom he represents as a candidate for the office of the Director from amongst the co-operative societies operating within the area of the Bank. 11. We may also refer at this stage to the two forms in which the candidature of any member for the office of the Director is to be proposed. 11. We may also refer at this stage to the two forms in which the candidature of any member for the office of the Director is to be proposed. These forms are provided by rule 13 of the Directors Election Rules which states that the proposals for the office of the Director of the Bank must be on the printed forms to be supplied by the Bank. These forms are given at page 14 of these Rules. At pages 15 and 16 of these printed Rules, there are two declaration forms to be filled in by the candidates. The form at page 15 is for a candidate from the co-operative societies within the operating area of the Bank and form at page 16 is for an individual member of the Bank who wants to be elected as a Director from amongst the members or the share-holders of the Bank. In both these forms, a declaration is required from the candidate that he is not an employee of the Bank or any co-operative society. We do not, however, find in the said election rules that a candidate is required to give any such declaration as contemplated by the two forms at pages 15 and 16. Such a declaration cannot be asked for under the election rules, nor do the bye-laws provide for the same. The petitioner No.1 in his petition has further specifically stated that though he had given a declaration form at page 15, he had specifically deleted the portion regarding his not being an employee of the Bank. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 was contending that the petitioner No.1 had given a declaration that he was not an employee or paid servant of the Bank, and, therefore, his nomination paper was accepted, but since he happens to be a paid servant of the Bank, he was not entitled to be nominated and could not now turn round and say that in spite of his being a paid servant of the Bank he was entitled to contest the seat. The allegation made by the petitioners in ground No. E wherein the petitioner No.1 has stated that he had struck off the clause regarding his not being an employee of the Bank has not been controverted by the respondent No.1 in its return and the other respondents have not filed any return at all. The allegation made by the petitioners in ground No. E wherein the petitioner No.1 has stated that he had struck off the clause regarding his not being an employee of the Bank has not been controverted by the respondent No.1 in its return and the other respondents have not filed any return at all. The contention, therefore, that the petitioner No.1 had acquiesced in the position that an employee of the Bank cannot contest the election for the office of the Director cannot be accepted. 12. The Cooperative Tribunal construed bye-law No. 25 to mean that the co-operative societies referred to therein include also the Bank-respondent No.5 which also falls within the area of its operation and the petitioner No.1 being a paid servant of the respondent No.5 Bank which is a co-operative society, he incurs a disqualification under Bye-law No. 25 (viii) and he is not entitled to contest the said election. The same contention is raised by the respondent No.1 here. The contention is that the respondent No.5 is a co-operative society, which undoubtedly it is. The area of the operation of the said Bank is whole of the district of Amravati and the Bank does its business at Amravati and other places in the district, that is, within the area of its operation, and therefore, a paid servant or officer of this Bank which is a co-operative society is not eligible for being elected or nominated as a Director of the said Bank. Here the Bank is the body corporate to which the Directors are to be elected and such Directors are to be elected from the different categories which have been mentioned in bye-law No. 25. The area of the operation of the Bank is the whole of the Amravati District and all these co-operative societies which come within the category described by bye-law No. 25 are to have their area of operation within the Amravati District and that qualifies them to send their representative from out of their members to be a Director of the Bank. The co-operative societies referred to, therefore, in clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 would be the co-operative societies other than the Bank itself which is also a cooperative society and it appears to us that the Bank is not included in clause (viii) of Bye-law No. 25. The co-operative societies referred to, therefore, in clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 would be the co-operative societies other than the Bank itself which is also a cooperative society and it appears to us that the Bank is not included in clause (viii) of Bye-law No. 25. If we refer to the other clauses of the bye-laws, the meaning which we attach to this clause (viii) would be clear. In the first place, bye-law No.1 gives the area of operation of the Bank which is the whole of the Amravati District and is authorised to operate in any part of the said district. Out of this area, the areas of operation of the different co-operative• societies are separate and they have to operate within that particular area only which is comprised in the much larger area of the Bank, namely, the whole or the district of Amravati. Unless the co-operative society which can send its representative is operating within the district of Amravati which is the area of the operation of the Bank, that co-operative society will not be able to send a representative to the Board of Directors. The word "Co-operative Society", therefore, in this clause cannot have any reference to the Bank itself, but to other co-operative societies which are operating within the area of operation of the Bank. If we look to the other clauses, it would be apparent that specifically a distinction is made between the Bank as such and the other co-operative societies which are affiliated to the Bank. That will be apparent from the various bye-laws given in the Banks Bye-laws. Clause (vii) of bye-law No. 25 would make it further clear that the Bank and the affiliated societies are treated differently and wherever the Bank is also sought to be involved there is a specific reference to the Bank in addition to the other societies operating in the area of the Bank. If the Bank, though a co-operative society, was to be taken as included in the words "any co-operative society" then in clause (vii) of bye-law No. 25, there was no need to make a specific reference to the Bank as a reference to the societies only, would have, in that case, been sufficient. If the Bank, though a co-operative society, was to be taken as included in the words "any co-operative society" then in clause (vii) of bye-law No. 25, there was no need to make a specific reference to the Bank as a reference to the societies only, would have, in that case, been sufficient. Clause (vii) refers to a dis-qualification of a member to continue to be a Director of the Bank and if a Director in authorised arrears in the Bank or any other affiliated co-operative society was held to be disqualified, it would have been sufficient only to say that no member in unauthorised arrears of any co-operative society operating in the area of the Bank could continue to be the Director of the Bank. This would show that the Bank is differently treated from the co-operative societies and where there are words referring to any co-operative society operating within the are of the Bank, they do not include the Bank, but exclude it. We also find the same thing in clause (x) of bye-law No. 25. It is not, therefore, possible to give a meaning to the words "any co-operative society” in clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 so as to include in it the Bank also. 13. It was, however, contended that in the declaration forms, supposed to be filled in by the candidates, require the candidates to make a declaration that he is not a paid officer or servant of the Bank which, according to the respondent No.1, shows that an employee of the Bank is not eligible to represent the non-Agricultural credit and industrial co-operative society in the district on the Board of Directors. In the first place, there is nothing in the Election Rules to show that a candidate for the office of the Director from out of these co-operative societies is required by the rules or the bye-laws to make a declaration as in the forms at pages 15 and 16 of the Election Rules. In the second place, neither the bye-laws nor the rules framed therein require such a declaration to be given, nor do they provide that a paid servant or officer of the Bank is not eligible to become a Director of the Bank. In the second place, neither the bye-laws nor the rules framed therein require such a declaration to be given, nor do they provide that a paid servant or officer of the Bank is not eligible to become a Director of the Bank. The aforesaid declaration forms, therefore, cannot be taken as a guide to the construction of clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 and the forms do not control either the bye-laws or the election rules framed under the bye-laws. In the absence of any provision either in the bye-laws or the election rules, the aforesaid clause in the said forms would be unauthorised and ineffective. 14. To support the construction which we have put on clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 the matter can be looked at from another point of view.- It is not the case of any party that such employee-member of the Bank is not eligible to be a candidate for the office of the Director of the Board of Directors of the Bank. Clause (ix) of bye-law No. 25 also does not prohibit such an employee-member of the Bank to become a Director of the said Bank. Neither the Co-operative Societies Act nor the rules made thereunder prohibit such employee-member to become a Director of the Bank. It is not, therefore, that no employee or paid servant of the Bank can ever become a Director of the Bank. As an individual share-holder he can get himself elected to the office of the Director from amongst the individual share-holders and there can be as many as five such Directors under Bye-law No. 25. We do not see, therefore, any rhyme or reason why an employee of the Bank who is a member of one of the affiliated societies operating within the area of the Bank cannot get himself elected as a Director and is ineligible for the same. One can understand that there is a total prohibition for an employee or paid servant of the Bank to become a Director, but we do not see any rational basis for permitting some employees or paid servants of the Bank to become Directors and prohibit others from so becoming. 15. The case is different with respect to the paid servant or officer of the society becoming a Director of the Bank. 15. The case is different with respect to the paid servant or officer of the society becoming a Director of the Bank. In such a case, there is a likelihood of a conflict between duty and interest and, therefore, such persons are said to be prohibited from becoming the Directors. A paid servant or officer of a society is under certain obligations of the society and if such a person becomes a Director of the Bank and if the interests of the societies and the Bank conflict in some matters then such a person will not be able to discharge his obligations and duties in a proper manner without detriment to the interests either of the Bank or the Society. Normally, a person who becomes a Director of a Bank is expected to safeguard the interests of the Bank and to act in its best interests. If, however, he were a paid officer of a society and so under its obligation and were to become a Director, then in case of conflict of interests between the society and the Bank naturally he will not be in a position to carry out his obligation towards the Bank in quite an impartial mariner and that is why it appears that the paid officers or servants of the societies are prohibited from contesting the office of the Director of the Bank. That cannot be said with regard to the other members of the co-operative societies, though the person may be a paid officer or servant of the Bank, because his loyalty will remain always with the Bank of which he is a Director and that will not create any conflict between his office as a Director and as an employee of the Bank or even as a member of the Society representing whom he has come on the .Board of Directors. 16. We do not, therefore, think that the intention of bye-law No. 25 was to bar a candidature of an. employee of the Bank who is a member of a cooperative society operating within the area of the Bank. 16. We do not, therefore, think that the intention of bye-law No. 25 was to bar a candidature of an. employee of the Bank who is a member of a cooperative society operating within the area of the Bank. It may be noted that the petitioner No.2 society consists of the employees of the Bank alone and there are no outsiders and if the view as propounded by the respondent No.1 or taken by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal is accepted, then at no time the petitioner No.2 will be able to send its representative on the Board of Directors as representing all the co-operative societies within that area though such a society as the petitioner No.2 is, is a validly formed society and is entitled to be a member of the Bank. We are, therefore, unable to give the meaning to bye-law No. 25, clause (viii) as has been given by the Co-operative Tribunal or as the respondent No.1 wants to give. In our opinion, therefore, clause (viii) of bye-law No. 25 does not include a paid officer or servant of the Bank, but it refers to any other co-operative societies in the said area excluding the Bank. There is, therefore, no bar to the employee, such as the petitioner No.1, of the Bank who is a member of the petitioner No.2 or any other society to contest the election for the office of the Director of the Bank-respondent No.5. The petitioner No.1 was, therefore, validly nominated as a candidate for the election of the Director of the Bank and was also validly elected for the same and the order of the Co-operative Tribunal holding the election of the petitioner No. 1 as invalid. On the ground that he was a paid employee of the Bank is illegal and erroneous. Such an order cannot be allowed to stand as it will interfere with the rights of the members of the petitioner No.2 for all the time. At least there is a danger that this order will be misused in all future elections. It is, therefore, desirable that this order must be struck down. 17. We accordingly quash the order of the Co-operative Tribunal dated 20th August 1968. At least there is a danger that this order will be misused in all future elections. It is, therefore, desirable that this order must be struck down. 17. We accordingly quash the order of the Co-operative Tribunal dated 20th August 1968. It is immaterial that term of the Director who was elected in the election of 1966 has expired, for the right of the petitioner No. 2 is being permanently affected by the order of the Co-operative Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The respondent No, 1 alone has contested this petition. The respondent No. 1 will, therefore, pay the costs of the petitioners. Impugned order quashed, and set aside.