JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. This petition has been preferred by the Anthiyur Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited and the challenge is directed against a notification dated 4th August 1969 purported to have been issued under R.126 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies R.1969 constituting certain areas specified therein as circles for purposes of the Act (Kerala Cooperative Societies Act 1969) (hereinafter referred to as the Act, in Chap.13 of the Rules. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction to be issued to the respondents to direct them to forbear from taking steps for forming circle cooperative unions pursuant to the communication, Ext. P1 addressed to the Society by the Cooperative Societies Circle Officer (Administration), Neyyattinkara. There is a further prayer for a declaration being issued to the effect that Circle Cooperative Unions cannot validly or legally be constituted without first issuing a notification under S.88 of the Act. 2. The attack against the notification dated 4-8-1969 is based on the contention that R.126 referred to above is ultra vires since there is no specific clause in S.109 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act conferring on the Government the power to make such a rule. I am unable to accept this contention. An examination of S.109 leaves no doubt in my mind that the enumeration contained in sub-s.2 thereof is without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred in sub-s.(1) whereunder Government have been empowered to make Rule to carry out the purposes of the Act. Hence, the only question is whether the Act contemplates the constitution of circles. If it does, the Government have the power under S.109(1) to make rules providing for such constitution. S.88 of the Act states that the Government shall, by notification in the Gazette constitute a circle Cooperative Union for each circle in the State. This section cannot be worked out unless circles are first constituted. Hence it is abundantly clear that the constitution of circles is certainly contemplated by the Act and that R.126 has been framed to carry out this purpose. I hold that it was fully within the competence of the Government to frame that rule. 3. The second and 3rd prayers put forward by the petitioner are connected and therefore can be dealt with together. I hold that it was fully within the competence of the Government to frame that rule. 3. The second and 3rd prayers put forward by the petitioner are connected and therefore can be dealt with together. The grievance put forward by the petitioner is that specified areas in the State were constituted for the circles for the first time only by a notification dated 4th August 1969 published in a gazette extraordinary dated 5th August. Hence it is contended that the circle officer could not have validly exercised any statutory function in his capacity as such prior to the constitution of he circles themselves. This proposition is unexceptionable but what has to be seen is whether in issuing the communication Ext. P1 the Circle Officer can be said to lave violated the above principle. All that has been done by him in Ext. P1 is to give an advance intimation to the petitioner Society that under the scheme of the Act and the Rules circles have to be formed by election and that the electoral body would consist of the committee members of the various societies in the area as well as the employees of such societies. He has accordingly requested the society under Ext. P1 to arrange to have the names of the committee members and employees communicated to him on or before the 8th of August 1969 so that he may be enabled to prepare the electoral rolls as a preliminary step for conducting the election. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to point out any specific rule, under which such notice is contemplated in regard to the first election to the circle union. So long as this is not a statutory step that the circle officer is required to perform under the Act or the Rules, it can't be said that in issuing such communication he has acted without jurisdiction. On the other hand, I am inclined to think that the officer being administratively fully aware that the unions are to be constituted and that the requisite notification was under way and the elections have to be held very shortly thereafter, he had only informally given advance intimation to the Society that assistance from them in the matter of preparation of the electoral rolls would be helpful. I see no illegality whatever in the circle office having issued Ext. P1. I see no illegality whatever in the circle office having issued Ext. P1. on a date prior to the publication of the notification constituting the circles. The next point that was argued was one relating to the interpretation be placed on S.88 of the Act. S.88 is in the following terms:- S.88. Constitution of circle Cooperative Unions- (1) The Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, constitute a circle cooperative union for each circle in the State with the following members, namely:- (a) nine members elected in such manner as may be prescribed by the members of the committees of the societies within the circle. (b) One member elected by the Board of Directors of the District Cooperative Bank having jurisdiction over the circle; (c) The seniormost Inspector of cooperative societies in the circle, ex officio and (d) two members elected in such manner as may be prescribed by the employees of cooperative societies within the circle. (2) Each circle cooperative union shall elect one of the members, other than the ex officio member, to be its chairman. (3) The ex officio member of each circle cooperative union shall be its secretary. (4) The Inspector of the District Cooperative Bank having jurisdiction over the circle, shall have the right to attend every meeting of the circle cooperative union and to take part in the discussions thereat, but shall have no power of voting. (5) The term of office of the members, other than the ex officio member, of a circle cooperative union shall be three years from the date on which they enter upon office". The contention advanced by the petitioner's counsel is that a notification under this section constituting a circle union, should precede the commencement of any step for holding the election. In other words, according to the learned counsel, it is only after publishing a notification under S.88 constituting a circle union that the authority concerned will have jurisdiction to take any further steps for the conduct of elections to the circle - cooperative union so constituted. I do not find anything in the wording of the section justifying such an interpretation. As I understand the section, what is required by it is that the Government should publish a notification in the Gazette constituting a circle Cooperative Union for each particular circle in the State specifying therein eo-nomine the members of the particular Union. I do not find anything in the wording of the section justifying such an interpretation. As I understand the section, what is required by it is that the Government should publish a notification in the Gazette constituting a circle Cooperative Union for each particular circle in the State specifying therein eo-nomine the members of the particular Union. This can obviously be done only after the elections of the 9 members mentioned in Clause A, the single member mentioned in clause B and 2 members mentioned in clause D have been conducted because, until then, it is not possible to specify the particular persons who will constitute the Union to be notified. If the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, it will mean that the Government is merely to publish a notification repeating verbatum only the wording of clauses A to D of S.88(1). This I do not think was the intention of the legislature. Under this section Government are not vested with any discretionary power to decide whether or not the union should be constituted. On the other hand, a mandatory duty is cast on the Government to constitute a union in the manner specified in the section. This can be done only after the election of the constituent members mentioned in clauses A, B and D of S.88(1) has been completed. I, therefore, hold that the contention put forward by the petitioner that the issuance of a notification under S.88(1) is a condition precedent to be complied with before the holding of election of the members who should constitute the union is not correct or tenable. 4. The last point urged was that industrial cooperative societies like the petitioner society are only few in number and they form a class by themselves and that clubbing them along with all the other general cooperative societies in the matter of election to the circle union and the State Union would cause them considerable hardship since they are not likely to get any representation at either level. This is purely a matter of legislative policy with which the court is not ordinarily concerned in proceedings like the present one initiated under Art.226 of the Constitution. 5. The original petition fails and is dismissed.