Judgment :- 1. An election to the Governing Body of a co-operative society by name "Thuravoor Padinjattumkara Co-operative Society Ltd., No. 2727", has given rise to this original petition. The petitioners are the members elected in the election held on 26-2-1977. The fifth respondent herein, who is a defeated candidate in the same election, challenged the election by a petition under S.69 of the O.P. Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (shortly the Act) before the third respondent, and, Ext. P1 is the election petition. Ext. P2 is the copy of the written statement filed in that case. The third respondent passed Ext. P3 award setting aside the election. The petitioners challenged the correctness of Ext. P3 order before the first respondent. The first respondent passed Ext. P5 order, confirming Ext. P3. Thus, the election was set aside by the competent authorities constituted under the Act. The petitioners are challenging the validity of Exts. P3 and P5. 2. Though, in the election petition, several grounds were urged for challenging the validity of the election, the only question that was raised before me was, whether non-compliance with R.35 (3) (a) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, (briefly the Rules) is a sufficient ground to invalidate the entire election. 3. The facts necessary to decide the question of law raised before me are short and are not in dispute The final list of the members of the society was drawn on 5-2-1977. The notice under R.35 (3) (a) was issued on 29-1-1977. It is common case that no notice was served on four members of the Society. The first respondent took the view that, though the notices were issued prior to the preparation of the final list of members, that irregularity may not invalidate the entire election, and, held that the non-service of notices on four members, however, is an omission, which would invalidate the election. R.35 contains a number of sub-rules and the object of the rule is to prescribe the procedure regarding conduct of the election to the Committee of Co-operative Societies. R.35(3) (a), which is the rule that strictly arises for consideration in this case, may be read: "3. R.35 contains a number of sub-rules and the object of the rule is to prescribe the procedure regarding conduct of the election to the Committee of Co-operative Societies. R.35(3) (a), which is the rule that strictly arises for consideration in this case, may be read: "3. (a) The Returning Officer shall send intimation regarding the details of the election of the members of the Committee to all members included in the final list of the voters to vote at the election of the committee either in person and obtain their full signature in token of having received the same or by post under certificate of posting. A copy of the intimation shall also be affixed on the notice board of the Head Office and the branches, if any, of the society. The intimation shall contain the following particulars: (i) The number of vacancies to be filled up by election; (ii) Any area or constituency that is specified in the byelaws from which members are to be elected; (iii) The date on which, the place at which and the hours between which nomination paper shall be filed by the contesting candidate or by his proposer or seconder such dates not being less than seven clear days before the dates fixed for the election; (iv) the date and hour when the nomination papers will be scrutinised; (v) the date on which, the place at which and the hours between which, polling will take place." 4. The contention urged by the petitioners is that, non-compliance with R.35(3)(a) cannot invalidate the election unless it is shown that the omission to issue notice to four members has materially affected the results of the election. It will be relevant in this context to examine briefly the salient features of R.35. The rule starts with the statement that, 'the election of the members of the committee of a society shall be conducted in the following manner'. Since the expression used is "shall", the normal inference to be drawn is that the provisions are mandatory. Sub-rule (1) deals with the meeting of the existing committee for fixing the date, time and place for the conduct of the election of the committee. Sub-rule (2) directs the Registrar to appoint a Returning Officer for the conduct of the election when the resolution passed by the existing committee, under sub-rule (1), is received. Sub-rule (1) deals with the meeting of the existing committee for fixing the date, time and place for the conduct of the election of the committee. Sub-rule (2) directs the Registrar to appoint a Returning Officer for the conduct of the election when the resolution passed by the existing committee, under sub-rule (1), is received. Sub-rule (3) (a) provides for the issuance of notices to the members, and, it mentions the particulars that are to be entered in the notice. Cluase (b) deals with the preparation of a list of members qualified to vote at the election. Clause (c)(i) and (ii) deals with the nomination of candidates. There are several clauses and sub-clauses to sub-rule (3) of R.35. Sub-rules (d) to (t) contain elaborate provisions regarding the conduct of the election. Sub-rule (4) is concerned with the preservation of ballot papers for the period mentioned therein. In all the sub-rules of R.35 the expression used is "shall". A reading of R.35 leaves no room for doubt that the rule, more or less, contains exhaustive provisions regarding the conduct of election to the committee of the society. 5. Sub-rule (3) (a) of R.35, which alone is relevant for the purposes of this case, may be considered on the basis of the various other sub-rules dealing with the conduct of the elections. As in the case of the main rule and other sub-rules, sub-rule (3) (a) uses the expression "shall". The provision says that intimation shall be sent to all members and their full signature in token of having received the notice has to be obtained, or, the notice must be served by post under certificate of posting. The intimation, according to the rule, should contain the important particulars referred to in clauses (i) to (v) of the sub-rule, and, those details relate to the number of vacancies, the area or constituency that is specified in the byelaws, the date on which, the place at which and the hours between nomination paper shall be filed, the date and hour when the nomination papers will be scrutinised, and, the date on which, the place at which and the hours between which, polling will take place. These, indeed, are the important items in any election. An election to the managing committee of a Society is no exception. These, indeed, are the important items in any election. An election to the managing committee of a Society is no exception. The contents of the concerned rule show that the intimation mentioned in the rule is vital and any omission to send the intimation, in accordonce with the rule, cannot but be fatal to the validity of the election. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules, which provides the grounds upon which an election could be invalidated. The absence of any such provision, and, also the presence of the expression "shall" in almost every provision of R.35, shows that every sub-rule mentioned in R.35 is mandatory and violation of anyone provision in R.35 will vitiate the election and make it void. While considering an election conducted under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, (X of 1950), the Andhra High Court held as follows in Nalluri Kottayya v. State of Andhra (1956 Andhra Weekly Reporter, 935): "If the essential steps required by law to be taken as preparatory to an election have not been taken or if such steps have been taken in a manner opposed to law, then, in that case, the election would be void ab initio and wholly without jurisdiction and no question as to the result of the election being materially affected would arise as envisaged by Rule 1(i)." Considering the wording of R.35, I am inclined to follow respectfully, the above dictum. 6. Even if the question whether the non-compliance with R.35(3) (a), has materially prejudiced the results of the election, is a vital factor to be considered before the election should be invalidated, as contended by the petitioner, I think that there are sufficient materials in this case to show that the question of material prejudice also cannot be eliminated. It was conceded before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the difference in votes obtained by the defeated candidate, the fifth respondent and one of the successful candidates, was only "four". Hence, the omission to give intimation to four voters cannot be ignored as a trivial omission, because, one cannot envisage that for whom the concerned members could have voted. I do not wish to pursue this matter further, because, I take the view, that non-compliance with sub-rule (3)(a) of R.35, by itself, is sufficient to invalidate the election. In the result, I confirm Exts. I do not wish to pursue this matter further, because, I take the view, that non-compliance with sub-rule (3)(a) of R.35, by itself, is sufficient to invalidate the election. In the result, I confirm Exts. P3 and P5 and dismiss this Original Petition. I make no order as to costs. Dismissed.