JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. The petitioners claiming themselves to be sympathiser members of the District Cooperative Bank, Biswan, district Sitapur, have filed this petition challenging the resolution dated 3rd September, 1978, removing 20 sympathiser members and the appellate order against the same, and for issue of a mandamus directing the opposite parties not to hold the election of sympathiser members Constituency. The petition has been opposed by the Secretary of the District Cooperative Bank, the opposite parties have, through Ajit Kumar Mehrotra who alone filed his nomination paper from the Constituency in question, filed similar counter affidavit. After the super session of the District Cooperative Bank, Biswan, district Sitapur, the District Magistrate was appointed as an Administrator and before fresh elections took place various Societies were reorganised and it was found that the membership was reduced from 703 to 308 with the result that the strength of sympathiser members which could not have been more than five per cent of the total membership was to be reduced to 15 from 35. Though there was dispute between the parties whether it should have been 15 or 14 but ultimately during the course of arguments it was not seriously challenged that the strength should have been 14. The allegation of the petitioner has been that during this period Gaya Prasad Mehrotra, father of Ajit Kumar Mehrotra, opposite party, who had filed nomination paper from sympathiser members Constituency and who had been his hold in the District Cooperative Bank, Biswan, manipulated things and got the names of 25 members removed and retained only 15 members who were mostly their family members of their relations or men of their pocket. The petitioner's case is that as strength should have been 14, but as 15 members are said to have been retained and thereafter resignation from one was taken, it will not validate, what was invalid at its very inception. The opposite parties have challenged the maintainability of the writ entry or the list of members was election on the basis of the same petition on the ground that alternative remedy is also open to the petitioner under section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the petition also suffers from laches. The opposite parties have challenged the maintainability of the writ entry or the list of members was election on the basis of the same petition on the ground that alternative remedy is also open to the petitioner under section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the petition also suffers from laches. So far as alternative remedy under section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is concerned an election has taken place and the petitioners have challenged the very basis of the election, that is, electoral roll which was erroneously prepared, the contention which has been raised by opposite part that section 70 provides alternative remedy fails. So far as the contention as regards laches is concerned from the averments which have been made in the affidavits and the counter affidavits, it is clear that the petitioners after coming to know that they have ceased to be sympathiser members they approached the proper authorities and filed an appeal which was dismissed. After dismissal of appeal the petitioners have filed the present writ petition From Annexure 6, it is found that the petitioners were not aware of the proceedings which took place and they had no notice as required under law. It, therefore, cannot be said that the petition suffers from laches. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire proceedings are vitiated and the same call for interference at this stage in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on two grounds, namely (1) the petitioners have been removed from the sympathiser membership without giving them any notice or opportunity and their removal is in violation of the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under, (2) the proceedings which have been taken are fictitious and electoral roll so prepared on the basis of the fictitious no electoral roll in the eyes pf law and no can take place. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that notice under certificate of posting was sent to the petitioners, as was also done previously, but no document in support of the assertion was filed. The byelaws of the Societies also do not show that notice be sent to the members under certificate of posting. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that notice under certificate of posting was sent to the petitioners, as was also done previously, but no document in support of the assertion was filed. The byelaws of the Societies also do not show that notice be sent to the members under certificate of posting. Section 116 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act provides for service of registered notice and the same reads as follows: "Every notice or order issued or made under this Act may be served on any person by properly addressing to the last known place of residence or business of such person and posting by registered post, a letter containing the notice or order, and unless the contrary is proved, such service shall be deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course." Chapter VIII of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968 deals with the meeting and Rule 96 of the said Rules provides for the issuance of notice in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or byelaws of the Society. Rule 96 reads as follows : Rule 96. "Notice of a meeting shall be given in accordance with the provision of the Act, the rules or the byelaw of the society." From a perusal of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under notice of a meeting are to be given through registered post and in this case of both the parties that it was a case of removal, though according to the petitioners it was a case concerned under section 27 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, while according to the opposite parties it was a case of removal under section 19 (2) (b) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, but it is clear that no notice under registered post was given to the petitioners who have made a complaint that this was deliberately done so that they may not be informed of any such proceedings and fictitious documents were pre pared. Even otherwise there will be no presumption of service in the present case on the petitioners under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as no notice through registered post was sent to the petitioners or under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act as things were not done in accordance with the provisions of law. Even otherwise there will be no presumption of service in the present case on the petitioners under section 27 of the General Clauses Act as no notice through registered post was sent to the petitioners or under section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act as things were not done in accordance with the provisions of law. In this case it is more than clear that no notice in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under was sent through registered post to the petitioners, as such there was no notice to the petitioners of the meeting, having been sent to the petitioners in the manner required, no service of the same will even be presumed to have been effected on the petitioner. If law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner the same is to be done in that manner otherwise It is to be taken as not having been done at all if statutory provisions required services of a notice in a particular manner, the same excludes 'day other manner of service and in the case of complaint of nonservice, it will be taken that no service has been effected at all and proceedings in such cases will be deemed to be honest. Where a mode of performing a duty is laid down by law it must be performed in that mode or not at all. This rule flows from the Maxim "Exprcssie Unius est exclusio alterius." The Rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor 1876 I.C.H. D. 426. Is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. The result is that if a statute has conferred "a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which power is to be exercised it necessarily prohibits the doing of an act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if there were not so, the statutory provisions might as well not have been enacted. This rule was applied by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor 1936 P.C. 53. The principle behind the rule is that if there were not so, the statutory provisions might as well not have been enacted. This rule was applied by the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor 1936 P.C. 53. After reviewing the case law on that point in Ram Chandra Keshaw Adke v. Govind J Chavare 1975 S.C.C. 559, the Supreme Court observed : "Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and other methods of performance arc necessarily forbidden. Intention of the Legislature to prohibit the verification of the surrender in a manner other than the one prescribed is implied in these provisions. Failure to comply with these mandatory provisions, therefore, had vitiated the surrender and rendered it non est for the purpose of section 5 (3) (b)." Even from the facts stated in the counter affidavit it is clear that a decision was taken before hand and the proceedings are shrouded with mystery and suspicion. The notice dated 3rd June, 1976 said to have been sent by the Secretary of the Bank mentioned, that the matter will be decided after drawing of the lots, whereas the decision was taken by the Committee of Management which alone could have taken such a decision to decide the matter by drawing of lots on 18th June, 1976. It seems that those who could have directed the Secretary to do things in this manner either gave him a direction or that the Committee of Management ratified such action of the Secretary. Both the resolutions were passed on 18th June, 1976 and in one resolution Annexure5 time has been mentioned as 1I a.m. while in the other no time has been mentioned. A boy is said to have drawn the lots, but whereabouts of the boy are not known and it is not known how he was called. The meeting was said to have been attended by 13 members out of whom two did not sign the proceedings, while the other meeting was attended by 19 members who signed the proceedings on that very date. This also lends to irresistible conclusion that the proceedings are illegal and were taken in violation of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under and no recognition to the same can be given. This also lends to irresistible conclusion that the proceedings are illegal and were taken in violation of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules framed there under and no recognition to the same can be given. We are also not impressed by the arguments raised by the opposite parties that no writ of mandamus can issue at this stage. There being serious illegalities in the matter and the opposite parties have acted in violation of the statutory provision, a writ of mandamus can Issue when there is a case of preparation of defective electoral roll which includes deletion of the names on the basis of which the election has taken place The Supreme Court in the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and another v. Radhey Shyam Dani A J. R. 1957 S.C. 304, approved the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer and issued a writ of mandamus before holding of the election as the electoral rolls were challenged to be defective. The Supreme Court observed : "It is of the essence of the elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained. It is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls, would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned." The writ petition is allowed and the proceedings dated 18th June, 1976 contained in Annexure 3A are quashed and a writ of mandamus is issued calling upon the Committee of Management to decide the question in accordance with the provisions of law after giving notice as is enjoined under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed there under. There will be no order as to costs.