JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an application of an affiliating Service Co-operative Society challenging the election held on the 7th of February, 1972, to the Committee of Management of the Sambalpur District Co-operative Central Bank Limited (Opposite party No. 1) (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank") and for a declaration that the election of opposite parties 3 to 12 to the Committee of Management is contrary to law. 2. The Bank is a Co-operative Society registered and incorporated under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereafter referred to as the "Act"). Accordingly it is governed by the Act arid the Orissa Co-operative Societies Rules (hereafter referred to as the "Rules") made, thereunder. It has also a set of Bye-laws, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ application. u/s 28 of the Act, the management of the Bank vests in a Committee to be constituted in accordance with the Rules and its Bye-laws. Section 27 of the Act vests final authority of a Society in the General Body of members. Section 29(b) of the Act provides that a general meeting of the Society shall be held once in a year for the purpose of inter alia, election, if any, in the prescribed manner of the members of the Committee other than nominated members. Election to the Committee of Management of the Bank was held on 7th of February, 1972, and the opposite parties 3 to 12 were elected. There is no dispute that the election was held in terms of the relevant Bye-law. But it is contended that the Bye-law is contrary to the relevant statutory provisions and, therefore, the election is vitiated. 3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 have entered appearance and the other opposite parties have not chosen to appear in spite 'of notice. In their respective counters these opposite parties have justified the election. 4. In the writ application various contentions were raised. During hearing, however, Mr. Rath for the Petitioner emphasises upon one contention pointedly Bye-law 30 is contrary to the scheme for election to the Committee contained in the Act and the Rules and, therefore, the election is vitiated. We have already referred to the provisions in the Act. We shall now extract the relevant Rule and the Bye-law for convenience. During hearing, however, Mr. Rath for the Petitioner emphasises upon one contention pointedly Bye-law 30 is contrary to the scheme for election to the Committee contained in the Act and the Rules and, therefore, the election is vitiated. We have already referred to the provisions in the Act. We shall now extract the relevant Rule and the Bye-law for convenience. Rule 30-A, which was brought by way of amendment in 1970 provides: (1) The election of the members of the Committee of a Society shall be held in the manner specified hereinafter. (2) The election shall be held in the General Body Meeting of the Society, and the provisions of the Bye-laws, not inconsistent with the Act or the Rules may apply. (3) The notice of the General Body Meeting issued by the Election Officer shall contain the following information: (a) The date on which, the place at which and the hours between which the nomination papers shall be filed; (b) The date on which, the place at which and the hours between which the notification papers shall be scrutinised; (c) The date on which, the place at which and the hours between which voting if necessary shall take place; (d) The place at which and the hours between which, the electoral roll can be inspected by any member; (e) The number of vacancies to be filled up by election and the area of the constituency from which members are to be elected. (4)(a) The Secretary or the Executive Officer of the society shall prepare constituency-wise, a list of members on the roll, with address, who are qualified in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and bye-laws to participate in the election as it stood thirty days prior to the date fixed for election and publish copies of the list by affixing them to the Notice Board at the Head Office of the Society and an its branches, three weeks prior to the date fixed for election. (b) Objections, if any, concerning any thing published in the list, may be heard by the 'Election Officer and decided within seven days of such publication and the final list shall be prepared and published. (c) A copy of the finalist published shall be supplied by the Society, to any member on payment of such fee as may be specified by the Registrar. (c) A copy of the finalist published shall be supplied by the Society, to any member on payment of such fee as may be specified by the Registrar. (5)(a) The nomination of the candidate shall be made in the prescribed form as at Schedule D seven days prior, to the date fixed for election. The form shall, on application be supplied to any member, free of cost by the Society. (b) Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the final Electoral Roll published for the purpose. One of the members shall sign the form as propose and the other as seconder for the nomination. (c) The nomination paper shall contain a declaration signed by the candidate, proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election. (d) Every nomination shall be presented to the Election Officer. xx xx xx (10)(a).......... (b) The Secretary or the Executive Officer of the Society shall provide the ballot boxes, ballot papers, copy of the final electoral rolls and other articles as may be necessary for conducting the election. xx xx xx Bye-law 30 makes the following provision in regard to the Committee of Management: (i) The management of the Central Bank shall vest in a committee consisting of fifteen members as indicated below: (a) Eight-member Societies from among the share holding agricultural Co-operative Societies affiliated to the Central Bank; (b) Two-member Societies from among the share holding non-agricultural Co-operative Societies including any other institutional members of the Central Bank; (c), Five persons to be nominated by the "State Government under the Act including a representative of the Orissa State Co-operative Bank and officer of the Co-operative Department. (ii)(a) The area of operation of the Central Bank is constituted of eight zones as follows, for election of the representatives of agricultural Co-operative Societies under Bye-law No. 30(i)(a) as members of the Committee xx xx xx (b) Each member-Society elected as a member of the Committee of Central Bank shall send a representative to represent it in the Committee of the Central Bank, provided that a member-representative of a member-Society, who is ineligible to become a member of the Committee of Management of the member-Society under the provisions of the Act, Rules or its Bye-laws shall not be sent as its representative to the Central Bank,.... (iii) The election of the members of the Committee specified above shall be conducted in the General Body of the Central Bank where each member present shall have a vote for filling up the state of the zone to which it belongs. 5. According to Mr. Rath for the Petitioner the process of election indicated in the Bye-law is contrary to the statutory provisions. Since the Act and the statutory Rules are to prevail in the event of inconsistencies between the Bye-law and the statute, the procedure indicated in the Bye-law for casting of votes cannot be followed and the impugned election having taken place in terms of the Bye-law and contrary to the requirement of the Act and the Rules, the election is vitiated. Mr. Rath for the Petitioner does not dispute the method of representation of agricultural and non-agricultural Co-operative Societies, but according to him, all the members of the General Body are entitled to vote and voting cannot be restricted to respective sub-groups only. It is here, according to Mr. Rath, that the Bye-law is inconsistent with the statute and the relevant statutory Rules. 6. As has been pointed out in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal and Others. Bye-laws have no statutory, force and they are like articles of association of a company binding on members who accept their terms. It is conceded before us that if bye-laws conflict with the statute or Rules under' the statute, bye-laws must give in and the Act and the Rules must prevail. What we are really called upon to decide, therefore, is as to whether there is indeed any inconsistency the inconsistency being in relation to the question as to who could vote every member of the General Body or those members of the General Body as are classified into different electoral constituencies. 7. The statute provides in Section 29(b) that election to the Committee of Management shall be in the annual general meeting Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30-A provides that election shall be held in the General Body meeting of the Society. Mr. 7. The statute provides in Section 29(b) that election to the Committee of Management shall be in the annual general meeting Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30-A provides that election shall be held in the General Body meeting of the Society. Mr. Rath bases his contention on these provisions and contends that every member of the General Body is thus a voter even when the provisions in the Bye-law are given effect to for securing representation of the two groups - agricultural and non-agricultural Societies in support of his proposition Mr. Rath places reliance on two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Sivaramaiah Choudhary v. Guntur Dt. C.C. Bank (1966) II AWR 382 and Ramakrishna v. Registrar Co-operative Societies Hyderabad ILR 1967 A.P. 651. He has also placed reliance on a decision' of the Supreme Court in the case of Ziley Singh, etc. Vs. Registrar, Cane Co-Operative Societies and Others. Having read the decisions referred to with some amount of care, we do not find support for Mr. Rath's contention in these decisions. Rule 30-A makes provision for division of the General Body into constituencies Sub-rule (3)(d) provides for an electoral roll. Detailed provision has been made to cover several aspects of the electoral process from making out of the electoral roll till publication of the result. Mr. Rath's contention could have succeeded if the Act had made a direct provision that each member of the General Body would have a right to vote for every member of the Committee of Management. In the absence of such a categorical provision in the Act, Rules could be made' by the appropriate authority prescribing the procedure. As we read the Rules, we find there is enough authority for the position that the total membership of the General Body is to be classified into groups and for such special representation, constituencies herd to be carved out. Mr. Rath's contention would have succeeded if the Rules would have provided for special representation only and not for electoral rolls. The provision for drawing up of electoral rolls with such details and care obviously suggests that it is not the General Body which would be entitled to vote for every item of special representation. A zonal basis has been contemplated and zone-wise election is intended. The provision for drawing up of electoral rolls with such details and care obviously suggests that it is not the General Body which would be entitled to vote for every item of special representation. A zonal basis has been contemplated and zone-wise election is intended. The Andhra Pradesh decisions proceed on the footing that the Rules did not contemplate of the General Body being divided into smaller sections for the purposes of election. Mr. Rath agrees that if the Rules had so provided, the Andhra Pradesh decisions could not have come to the conclusions reached in those two reported decisions. What the learned Judges were looking for and found wanting in the two decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in our humble view, are present in Rule 30-A of our present Rules. A close analysis of this Rule would go to show that it necessarily postulates an electoral roll on division of the members of the General Body into different sections and voting has, therefore, to be on the basis of the electoral roll. The electoral roll has a well-known connotation. If the General Body was to work at the electoral roll, there would have been no occasion for the detailed provision in the Rules. In our view, Rule 30-A does not contemplate that every member of the General Body would be entitled to vote in the election of very member to the Committee be he from any of the groups. On the other hand, detailed procedure has been laid down for supplying up the entire voters into different constituencies and for each constituency an electoral rallies contemplated. It would obviously mean that those in the electoral roll would be entitled to vote for their respective' constituencies. 8. Such a position does not conflict with the requirement in Rule 30-A(2) or Section 29(b) of the Act that the election to the Committee of Management shall be transacted in the General Body. The requirement that election shall be transacted in the General Body meeting does not necessarily mean that every member of the General Body present is bound to vote every member to be elected to the Committee of Management. The business is to be transacted at a meeting of the General Body and in the manner provided. The requirement that election shall be transacted in the General Body meeting does not necessarily mean that every member of the General Body present is bound to vote every member to be elected to the Committee of Management. The business is to be transacted at a meeting of the General Body and in the manner provided. There is no conflict between the requirement of the statute and the statutory Rule on one side and the provision in the Bye-law an the other. The Bye-law actually supplements the statute and the statutory Rule in the matter of election and it does not supplant it. Supplant it could not, because, it being subsidiary in character could not compete with the source or paramount authority; supplement it can, if it is not inconsistent. On our interpretation there is no scope far the contention of Mr. Rath that there has been any conflict. Therefore, the election held in terms of the relevant Bye-law is not contrary to the statutory requirement either the Act or under the Rules. 9. It is time we refer to a preliminary objection of the opposite parties which we had not dealt with until now far good reason. Mr. Rath far the Petitioner in answer to the preliminary objection of the opposite parties had stated that the vires of the Bye-law approved of the Registrar was not open to challenge before a subordinate authority of the Registrar. Without examining the correctness of the stand of Mr. Rath, we had proceeded to find but whether the Bye-law was good or became had being in conflict with the Act and the Rules. There may be farce in the contention of the opposite parties that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal and Others, the vires of the Bye-law was open to dispute before a statutory authority. It is not necessary to advert to the matter further in view of our finding that the election in question was not under an illegal provisions of the Bye-law. Certainly in regard to any other mistake, the normal avenue of remedy provided under the statute could have been availed of and, therefore, we have not chosen to examine any contention in regard to that aspect. 10. The writ application must accordingly fail as devoid of merit. Certainly in regard to any other mistake, the normal avenue of remedy provided under the statute could have been availed of and, therefore, we have not chosen to examine any contention in regard to that aspect. 10. The writ application must accordingly fail as devoid of merit. We dismiss it, but leave the parties to bear their awn casts of the proceeding. B.K. Ray J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed