K. J. SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was a member of "the Binny Employees' Co-operative housing Society Ltd. ", called shortly as "the Society". He was also a permanent employee of the Bangalore woollen, Cotton and Silk Mills Co. , ltd. The membership of the Society was open to only the permanent employees of the said Company as provided by its Bye-law No. 4 (2 ). That Bye-law reads as follows: -"4 (2) Any person over 18 years of age legally competent to contract and is a permanent employee of the bangalore Woollen, Cotton and Silk mills Co. , Ltd. , or closely associated with the Welfare Operations of the mills shall be eligible for admission as a member, but no person can claim admission as a matter of right, and no person who is already a member of a building Society operating in the same area shall be admitted as a member without specific sanction from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. "the petitioner retired from service with effect from 30th June, 1974. Consequently, the Society issued to him a notice dated 18th January 1975 (Ext-'a') stating thus:"cessation of Membership.- this is to inform you that consequent upon your retirement resignation from the service of the bangalore Woollen Cotton and Silk mills, Bangalore as from. . . you have ceased to be the member of the above society under Bye-law No. 6 read with Bye-law No. 4 (2) of the registered Bye-laws of the society. Please note that your membership in the society has ceased the day on which you retired Iresigned from the service of the Mills. The Board of the Society in its meeting held on 17-1-1975 has adopted a resolution to the effect that your membership in the society has ceased on your retirement resignation from the service of the Mills. As per the said resolution of the board, your share amount has been kept in suspense and you are requested to go over to the society and receive the same. For the Binny Employees' Co. operative, Housing Society Ltd. Sd/- (M. Pratapan) Secretary"the petitioner thereupon, raised a dispute which was referred, for adjudication to an Arbitrator. The, arbitrator by his award dated 27th september 1975 set aside the removal of the petitioner by holding that the society has no right to remove the petitioner notwithstanding the bye-law providing for it. For the Binny Employees' Co. operative, Housing Society Ltd. Sd/- (M. Pratapan) Secretary"the petitioner thereupon, raised a dispute which was referred, for adjudication to an Arbitrator. The, arbitrator by his award dated 27th september 1975 set aside the removal of the petitioner by holding that the society has no right to remove the petitioner notwithstanding the bye-law providing for it. Against the award of the Arbitrator, the Society appealed to the Kamataka Appellate tribunal. The Tribunal allowed, the appeal reversing the award of the arbitrator. It was held tha,t the petitioner automatically ceased to be the member of the Society under bye-law No. 4 (2) consequent upon the losing of the qualification prescribed lor member ship, and it does not amount to removal from the Society. The order of the Tribunal is challenged in this petition. The validity of the bye-law No. 6 is also called into question. ( 2 ) THE question to be considered lies in a narrow compass. The question is whether the petitioner who was admitted as a member of the Society would automatically lose his membership upon his retirement from the company and the Bye-law providing for such cessation of membership is valid. Bye-law No. 6 framed by the society provides for the cessation of membership. It states, among others that a person shall cease to be a member of the Society if he loses the qualification prescribed under by-law no. 4 (2 ). By-law No. 4 (2) as. earlier seen, prescribes qualifications to become a member of the Society and one of the qualifications is that the person should be a permanent employee of the Company. ( 3 ) WHAT is the meaning of "cessation of membership?" It is, according to me, just depriving a person of his right to continue as a member of the society. It is, therefore, nothing short of removal of the membership. The real question would then be, whether the Karnataka Co-operative Societies act, 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder provide for any such automatic removal or cessation of membership of the Society and whether the Bye-law providing for such result would be valid? Such a question is not for the first time coming for consideration before this Court. There are quite a number of decisions on this question in reiterating the view that a member who has been validly admitted cannot be expelled or removed from the society. Such a question is not for the first time coming for consideration before this Court. There are quite a number of decisions on this question in reiterating the view that a member who has been validly admitted cannot be expelled or removed from the society. See B. B. Bannad v. The betgeri Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (1), Shirayogi bhivalingappa Basavana v. Registrar of Co-operative societies (2) and K. M. Pattanshetti v. Registrar of Co-operative Societies (3 ). ( 4 ) IN all these decisions, it has been clearly laid down that a bye-law which provides for removal of a member from the co-operative institution would be invalid. It is therefore not necessary to examine in detail the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules. Sec. 16 of the Act provides as to who may become members of the society. S. 17 provides for disqualification for membership. It is not the case of the Society that the petitioner has suffered any disqualification provided by these two sections. Therefore, he has every right to continue as a member. ( 5 ) THE only rule relevant in this context is Rule 5. Rule 5 (1) (i) authorises the Society- to make bye- laws providing for the terms and conditions of admission of members and their rights and liabilities. Rule 5 (2) (a) authorises the society to make-by-laws providing for the circumstances under which withdrawals from membership may be permitted. Rule 5 (2) (b) provides for the Society to follow some procedure in cases of withdrawal, eligibility and death of members. None of these sub-rules authorises the Society to make bye-laws providing for removal of an existing member. In the absence of any such express power, the society has no power to frame bye-law No. 6 (c) providing for cessation of membership. II is an accepted principle that the delegated authority cannot exercise any power which has not been expressly conferred by the statute and that what it has not been, authorised must always be taken to be prohibited, the rules are valid if they come within the powers granted by the Act. The bye-laws are valid if they come under the powers conferred by Rules. This is particularly true in the case of the statutory societies. Therefore, the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Society cannot be sustained and the bye-law providing for such removal cannot be valid. The bye-laws are valid if they come under the powers conferred by Rules. This is particularly true in the case of the statutory societies. Therefore, the removal of the petitioner from the membership of the Society cannot be sustained and the bye-law providing for such removal cannot be valid. ( 6 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute, the order of the Appellate tribunal is quashed and that of the arbitrator is restored. ( 7 ) THE petitioner is entitled to his costs from Respondent-1. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/ -. --- *** --- .