( 1 ) IN this writ petition under Art 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the registration of amendments to Rules and Regulations of the Karnataka Provincial Hindi Pra,char Sabha alias Dakshma Bharath hindi Prachar Sabha (Karnataka) (hereinafter referred to as the society. Admittedly, the petitioners are the lite members ot the society though they claim that they hold, certain offices in the Society which is disputed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. In this writ petition, I propose to examine the claim of the petitioners as life members of the Society. The, Society is a registered society governed by the Karnataka Societies Registration Act of 1960 (Karnataka Act 17 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and the rules framed thereunder. Prior to 22. 9. 1977, the name and object of the society as set out in Regulation III were as under:-"i. NAME: The name of the Society shall be Karnataka Provincial hindi Prachar Sabha, Dharwar alias Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar sabha (Karnataka ). III OBJECT: The, Sabha, Shall function in Karnataka as a branch of the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha Madras. The object of the Sabha shall be spread a, knowledge of Hindi through Devanagan script. "on 14. 9. 1977, a notice of the special General Body Meeting to be held on 22. 9. 1977 was sent to the members of the Society to consider vario amendments to the Rules and Regulations of the Society. On 22. 9. 1977, the general body is stated to have approved the amendments to the various rules and Regulations of the Society. On 28. 9. 1977, the Secretary of the society filed the amendments approved in the special General Body Meeting before the Registrar of Societies (hereinafter referred to as 'the registrar ). On 30. 9. 1977 the Registrar has registered the amendments to the Rules and Regulations of the Society made on 22. 9. 1977 and has issued a certificate in th,at behalf on the same day (Exhibit E ). Sometime thereafter two persons claiming themselves as Secretary and Special Officer of the Society moved the, Registrar for cancellation of the registration granted by him to the amended Rules and Regulations of the Society which was registered as case No. AMR-215-77-78. 9. 1977 and has issued a certificate in th,at behalf on the same day (Exhibit E ). Sometime thereafter two persons claiming themselves as Secretary and Special Officer of the Society moved the, Registrar for cancellation of the registration granted by him to the amended Rules and Regulations of the Society which was registered as case No. AMR-215-77-78. Before the Registrar, those two persons inter-alia urged that the notice issued to the members of the Society giving only 7 days notice was not in conformity with Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act and the registration of the amendments wa,s liable to be cancelled. On the said petition, the, Registrar issued notices to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who opposed the claim of those two persons. On a, consideration of the cntentions urged before him, the Registrar by his order dated 28. 6. 1978 (Ex-D) found that the amendments had been made in derogation of the provisions of the-Act and in the absence of a specific provision, he could not cancel his earlier order dated 30. 9. 1977. The operative portion of the order of the Registrar reads thus:- i therefore agree with the learned counsel for complainant's contention that provisions of S. 9 and 10 will have to be followed, for any amendments, and not provisions of S. 11 (3) of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the defendants. In the present case the procedure as laid down in Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act have not been followed. "however, as there is no provision in the Act to cancel the amendments, once registered, the request of the applicant to cancel the amendments registered a,s No. AMR-195-77-78 dated 30-9-77 is rejected. "as the Register ha,s refused to cancel the amendments, the petitioners have moved this Court for cancellation of the Registration of the amendments made on 30. 9. 1977. ( 2 ) SHRI G. S. Visweswar, learned counsel for the petitioners concended that the order made by the Registrar on 30-9-1977 was not a judicial or a quasi judicial order and was an administrative order and mat even in the absence of an express provision in the Act, it was open 10 the. Registar to correct an error committed by him arid the view taken by the Registrar to the contrary is illegal. Registar to correct an error committed by him arid the view taken by the Registrar to the contrary is illegal. Learned counsel for the respondents in my opinion rightly, also did not controvert the submission of Shri Visweswar. ( 3 ) ANY mistake found in an Administrative order can always be corrected, by the authority that has passed the order and no express power is necessary for the same as held, by the Registrar. Section 21 of the General clauses Act incorporates the above rule of construction and does not support the view taken by the Registrar. In this view, it has necessarily to be held that the order of the Registrar refusing to rectify or cancel the amendments for the reasons found by him on the ground that there was no express provision for the same is liable to be quashed and the relief sought by the petitioners therefore, requires to be granted by this Court. But Shri g. Dayananda, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 sought to support the action of the Registrar on a new ground, Shri Dayananda maintained that under the Rules and. Regulations of the Society, only 1 cleai days of notice was required to be given and there being compliance with that requirement, it was unnecessary to comply with requirements of 21 days notice provided by the Sections 9 and 10 of the Act. Shri Dayananda also urged that the provisions relating to the requirement of 21 days notice, are not mandatory provisions and are only directory provisions and, therefore the action of the Society in disregard of those provisions and the registration thetreto are therefore valid. Shri Vishweswar refuted the contentions of Shri Dayananda and urged that Sections 9 and, 10 of the Act are mandatory provisions. ( 4 ) REGULATION No. 3 of Chapter IX of the Rules and Regulationoss of the Society-Constitution and Rules and Regulation of the Sabha (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') provides for 7 clear days notice for holding an ordinary General Body meeting or a special General Body Meeting. It is not also in dispute that 21 days notice has not been given to the members of the Society. A Bye law or a rule made by the Society, cannot override a statutory provision like Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act and must necessarily yield to those provisions. It is not also in dispute that 21 days notice has not been given to the members of the Society. A Bye law or a rule made by the Society, cannot override a statutory provision like Ss. 9 and 10 of the Act and must necessarily yield to those provisions. In a case of conflict between a Bye law and rule or a'sta,tute the bye-law or a rule of a Society must necessarily yield to the Statute and therefore Shri Dayananda cannot derive any sustenance from Rule No. 3 of the Rules to sustain the action of the Society and the registrar. I therefore reject the contention of Shri Dayananda that the action, of the Society and the Registrar can be sustained under Rule No. 3 of the Rules of the Society. ( 5 ) BEFORE the Registrar, the parties did not join issue on the question whether Ss. 9 and 10 of the, Act are mandatory or directory provisions for which reason, I do not propose to refer to his order. ( 6 ) IN his order, the Registrar has found that Ss,. 9 and 10 of the Act applied to the case and. had been contravened in effecting the registration on 30. 9. 1977 (Ex-E ). Apart from altering the various Rules, the name and object of the Society has been changed, on 22. 9. 1977 as under:-"name: the name of the Society shall be Karnatak Provincial Hindi prachar Sabha, Dharwar. III. Object: the Sabha shall function in Karnataka. The object of the Sabha shall be to spread a, knowledge of Hindi through Devanagan script. "from the above, it is seen that thei Registrar is right in holding that SSL 9 and 10 applied to the, amendments made on 22-9-1977. Before ascertaining whether ss. 9 and 10 are mandatory or directory it is necessary to bear in mind the distinction between a mandatory provision and a directory provision. A mandatory provision must be obeyed or. fulfilled exactly while a directory provision has to be obeyed or fulfilled substantially. Normally, any non- compliance of a mandatory provision results in nullification of the act done in breach of the provision (Vide Woodward v. Sarsons (1875 LR. 10 CP 735 = 1874 (80) All. E. R. Reprint 262, 268,) and Drigraj Kuer (Rani) v. Amar Krishna Narain (Raja), (AIR. Normally, any non- compliance of a mandatory provision results in nullification of the act done in breach of the provision (Vide Woodward v. Sarsons (1875 LR. 10 CP 735 = 1874 (80) All. E. R. Reprint 262, 268,) and Drigraj Kuer (Rani) v. Amar Krishna Narain (Raja), (AIR. 1960 SC, 446, 449, 451.) ( 7 ) SECTIONS 9 and 10 of the Act read thue"9. Alteration of memorandum of association :- (1) Whenever it shall appear to the governing body of any society registered under this Act which has been established for any particular purpose or purposes that it is advisable to alter, extend or abridge such purpose or for other purposes specified in Section 3, the governing body may submit the proposition to the members of the society in a written or printed report, and may convene a special general meeting for the, consideration thereof according to the rules and regulations of the Society. But no such propositions shall be deemed to have been an proved unless such report has been delivered or sent by post to every member of the society twenty-one days previous to the date of the special general meeting convened by the governing body for the consideration thereof, and unless such proposition shall have been agreed to by the votes; cast in favour of the proposition by members who being entitled so to do, vote in person, or where proxies are allowed, by proxy, and such votes are not less than three times the number of the votes, if any, cast against the resolution by members so entitled and voting and confirmed by a similar majority of votes at a second special meeting convened by the governing body after an interval of thirty days; after the, former meeting. (2) Every change in the memorandum of association approved under sub-section (1) shall be filed with the Registrar within thirty days, from the date of making thereof along with a fee of twenty rupees and registrar may if he is satisfied that the change is in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder register such change. Such change shall not have effect until it has been so registered. Such change shall not have effect until it has been so registered. (3) If the Registrar refuses to register a change in the memorandum of association under sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie to the Mysore revenue Appellate Tribunal within sixty days from the date of communication, of his refusal to register the change. Every such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of two rupees. ""10. Change of name, rules and regulations: - (1) The name and. the rules and regulations of a society may be amended by a resolution passed at a, special geneal meeting convened for the purpose of which written or printed notice shall have, been delivered or sent by post to every member of the society twenty-one days previous to the date of the special general meeting and the resolution proposing the amendment is passed by the votes cast in favour of the resolution by members who being entitled so to do, vote in person or where proxies are allowed, by proxy, and such votes are not less than three times the number of the votes, if any, cast against the resolution by members so entitled and voting. (2) Every amendment made under sub-section (1) shall, within thirty clays from the making thereof be filed with the Registrar along with a fee of ten rupees and if the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment is in accordanrce with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, shall register it. Such amendment shall have effect only after it is so registered. (3) If the Registrar refuses to register the amendment under sub-section (2) an appeal shall lie to the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal within sixty days from the date of communication of his refusal to register the amendment. Every such appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of two rupees. "sub-section (1) of S 9 of the Act in so far as it relates to issue of notice, uses negative wordy apart from employing the word 'shall. ' Whenever negative words are used in a statute, the intendment of the statute is imperative or mandaory (Vide M. Pentian-vs-Muddala Veeramallappa ( AIR 1961 SC 1107 . ). Even the word 'shall' normally raises a presumption that that provision is imperative or mandatory though the same is not decisive. (Vide Sanik motors, Jodhpur -vs- State of Rajasthan (AIR1961sc. 1480,1485, ). ). Even the word 'shall' normally raises a presumption that that provision is imperative or mandatory though the same is not decisive. (Vide Sanik motors, Jodhpur -vs- State of Rajasthan (AIR1961sc. 1480,1485, ). From these two, the only inescapable conclusion is that the provision relating to 21 days clear notice in s. 9 of the Act is mandatory. ( 8 ) IN S. 10 of the Act, negative words are not used but only the word 'shall' has been employed. As observed by the Supreme Court in Sainik motor's case. I have to ascertain whether the context and the intention of the Legislature providing for 21 days notice is mandatory or not The intention and object of S 9 and 10 of the Act is to give a minimum or a particular period of notice to the; members of the Society who may be residents of different and far off places as in the case of the Society, to be present " the special General Meeting and effectively participate jn the deliberations of the meeting and if necessary to turn down any proposal for any change placed before the special General Meeting. The requirement of f proper notice for the minimum period provided by these Sections is not an empty formality. In the Societies Registration Act of 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860\ (herein after. v leferred to as the Central Act'), minimum period of 10 days is specified for issue of notices. But in the uniform Karnataka Act, a period of 21 days has been deliberately introduced by the Legislature and the same is not without significance. In my opinion, having regard to the intention and object, the requirement of 21 days notice ih S. 10 of the Act is a mandatory requirement. ( 9 ) APART from the above, S. 9 and 10 providing for a minimum period of notice, confer a right on the members of the Society who are vitally interested in any of the changes enumerated in those provisions. A condition imposed in an Act for the benefit of the members of the Society or the public is always considered as mandatory and on this principle alone Ss. 1 and 10 providing for 21 days notice have to be construed as mandatory. A condition imposed in an Act for the benefit of the members of the Society or the public is always considered as mandatory and on this principle alone Ss. 1 and 10 providing for 21 days notice have to be construed as mandatory. In ram Charan Agarwala v. Shridhar Mishra a Division Bench of the allahabad High Court has construed a corresponding provision in the Central act viz. , S. 12 as mandatory. I arn in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Ram Charan Agarwala's case. ( 10 ) AS the notice issued to the members did not conform itself to the requirements of S. 9 and 10 of th Act, the changes and amendments made in the special General Meeting held on 22. 9. 1977 were not legal and valid. Aforticri the registration of the changes and bye laws made by the Registrar on 30-9-1977 (Ex-E) is not legal and valid and is liable to be quashed. In this view it is not necessary to quash the order dated 28. 6. 1978 of the registrar Ex-D to which the petitioners were not parties. I therefore quash the registration of the changes and bye laws made by the Registrar to the karnataka Provincial Hindi Prachara, Sabha, Dharwar, in his No-AMR 95 77-78 dated 30-9-1977 (Ex-E) without prejudice to the right of the Society to make changes in accordance with law. ( 11 ) RULE made absolute. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs --- *** --- .