Judgment :- 1. Though various contentions are seen to have been raised in the writ petition, the substantial question that falls for decision is whether it is competent for the Administrator or the Committee appointed under S.33 (1) (ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (the Act) to admit new members to the rolls of the Society. 2. It is not disputed that in exercise of the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, delegated to him, the 1st respondent, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Cannanore, had appointed as per Ext. P-1 proceeding dated 22-2-1980 the 2nd respondent, the Valuation Inspector, Tellicherry Land Mortgage Bank, to be the Administrator of the Chovva Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., of which the 3rd respondent is the Secretary. That the number of members of the Bank as on the date of assumption of office by the 2nd respondent stood at 10766 and that thereafter 400. 1305 and 1767 new persons were admitted to the membership of the Bank respectively on 17-3-1980, 20-3-1980 and 9-5-1980 are facts not in dispute. 3. Sri K. Chandrasekharan, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the action of the Administrator in admitting new members enbloc in an undue haste between I7-3-I980 and 9-5-1980, when the date fixed for the election was 29-6-1980, is not warranted by the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, or by the limited powers conferred on him by the very appointment order (Ext. P-1) Inasmuch as the terms contained in Ext. P-1 had figured very prominently during the course of the argument.1 would like to extract below the material portion of that order: "In the above circumstances the only alternative is to appoint an Administrator to manage the day to day administration of the Bank Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under S.33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 21 of 1969. the. Valuation Inspector, Tellicherry L. Bank is appointed as the Administrator of the Chovva Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd., No. F. 1277 for a period up to 30-6-1980. He will arrange election before the expiry of the period. The part-time administrator will manage the affairs of the society without prejudice to his normal official duties and according to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and bye-laws of the Society and also according to the directions issued from this office from time to time." 4. He will arrange election before the expiry of the period. The part-time administrator will manage the affairs of the society without prejudice to his normal official duties and according to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and bye-laws of the Society and also according to the directions issued from this office from time to time." 4. We may before proceeding further notice the provisions contained in S.33 (2) of the Act dealing with the power to be exercised by the Administrator appointed under sub-section (1) of the Section: '(2) The Committee or administrator or administrators appointed under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions as he may from time to time give, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the Committee or of any officer of the society and take all such action as may be required in the interests of the society." 5. Sri. Chandrasekharan's argument is that the Act of adding members to the rolls of the bank falls outside the purview of the day-to-day administration of the Bank. He pointed out that the process of admitting members to the rolls of the Bank in the light of the provisions contained in the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules is not a mechanical or simple affair as is attempted to be made out by the 2nd respondent According to him, the day-to-day business means the routine things and he has also relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gidda Naga Malliah &.Others v. Kothuri Laxmayya & others (AIR. 1970 A.P. 289). 6. The contention of Sri. V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, the counsel for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, is that under S 30 of the Act and R.15 of the Rules, normally it is the function of the Committee to admit members to the rolls of the society The question is whether that forms part of the day-to-day administration of the society or not. Great stress was laid by Sri Chandrasekharan on the expression "administrator to manage the day to day administration of the bank" used in Para.2 of Ext P-1 under which the 2nd respondent was appointed to be the administrator by the first respondent. Great stress was laid by Sri Chandrasekharan on the expression "administrator to manage the day to day administration of the bank" used in Para.2 of Ext P-1 under which the 2nd respondent was appointed to be the administrator by the first respondent. Stress was also laid on the expression "according to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and bye-laws of the Society and also according to the directions issued from this office from time to time" used in Para.3 of . Ext. P-1 appointment order. On a careful consideration of the scheme of the Act and the Rules it could be found that admitting members to the rolls of the society, which in the normal course is the routine function of the Committee, is not anything extraordinary in character so as to take it out of the purview of what is described in S.33 (2) of the Act as day-to-day administration of the society. This right of the administrator is not also in any way restricted by the expression "subject to the control of the Registrar and to such instructions he may from time to time give" appearing in sub-section (2) of S.33, inasmuch as Registrar cannot be presumed to have any authority to control the Administrator or to give instructions to him in a manner inconsistent with the spirit of the provisions of the Act, Rules and approved bye-laws of the society. Sub-section (1) of S.16. which section deals with persons who may become members, contains prohibition against admitting certain class of persons as members of a society. Sub-section (3) of that section provides "(3) Where a person is refused admission as a member in a society, the decision refusing admission together with the reasons therefor shall be communicated by the society to that person within a period of fifteen days from the date of the decision," It would appear that the intendment of the legislature is that application for membership should receive prompt attention of the managing committee. Safeguard is also provided in sub-section (3) of S.16 against that power being exercised by the Committee with mala fides or in a casual or arbitrary manner It does not appear that it is the intention of the legislature to take away that right and duty vested in the Committee from the Administrator appointed under S.33(2) of the Act The direction in Para.3 of Ext. P-1 that the Administrator would manage the affairs of the society according to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and bye-laws of the Society and according to the directions issued from the office of the 1st respondent, does not in any way indicate a contrary intention. I have not been shown any provision either in the Act, the rules or the bye-laws which expressly or by necessary implication forbids the Administrator appointed under S 33(2) of the Act from enrolling new members. It could not also be argued that when the direction in Para.3 of Ext P-1 was that the Administrator was to manage the affairs of the society according to the directions issued from time to time by the Ist respondent, in the absence of a specific direction from the office of the 1st respondent to enrol new members 2nd respondent could not have undertaken that function. The directions the 1st respondent is supposed to give to the 2nd respondent could only be directions for furthering and safeguarding the interest of the society in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws. It is not as though the 2nd respondent is helpless to carry on the functions of the society unless and until directions are received from the office of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent himself has no power to give any direction which is contrary to the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws. The direction contained in Para.3 of Ext P-1 could only be taken as an enabling provision for the 1st respondent to guide the 2nd respondent where doubts may arise or clarifications might be felt necessary. In my view there is nothing in the Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or even in the direction contained in Ext P! which restrains the Administrator from exercising the power which the committee could have exercised in the normal course. 7. In my view there is nothing in the Act, the rules or the bye-laws, or even in the direction contained in Ext P! which restrains the Administrator from exercising the power which the committee could have exercised in the normal course. 7. The argument of Shri Chandrasekharan that the 2nd respondent was appointed only as a part-time Administrator, in that he was appointed without prejudice to his carrying on his normal duties as the evaluation officer, Land Mortgage Bank, Tellicherry, and therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that he was appointed to be administrator only for the limited purpose of carrying on the day to day business of the Bank, which are absolutely necessary and which could not wait, has no basis whatsoever, either in law or on facts. So far as the power of the Administrator with respect to the affairs of the society is concerned, it could make no difference whether he is appointed on full time basis or part-time basis. When his appointment is characterised to be part-time, it only means that he need not devote the whole time in connection with the affairs of the society, and he is expected to fulfil his duties, as Administrator without affecting official duty which was already assigned to him. It has absolutely no relevance to the limit of the power he is entitled to exercise as an Administrator appointed under S.32 (2) of the Act. It would be absurd to construe that part-time appointment implies only part of the functions and powers of the full-time appointment. On this ground also the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the validity of the action taken by the 2nd respondent in enrolling new members. 8. It would be absurd to construe that part-time appointment implies only part of the functions and powers of the full-time appointment. On this ground also the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the validity of the action taken by the 2nd respondent in enrolling new members. 8. The counsel for the petitioner has emphasised the manifest injustice that may result from the administrator admitting members at the last moment, just a few days prior to the date fixed for the election, inasmuch as it would make it possible for interested persons on extraneous considerations to bring in members who are to favour a particular set of persons and which possibility may not always be in the best interests of the society There might probably be an element of truth in this apprehension; all the same, as long as the legislature has not chosen to take serious notice of the possibility of abuse, or felt the need for changing the law to provide for safeguards against such abuses, I do not think it is for the court to question the wisdom of the legislature, or to decline to give full effect to the intendment of the legislature. All the same it appears to be a matter which deserves the consideration of the legislature as to how best chances of such abuses could be minimised, if not altogether eliminated, by suitable legislative process. 9. On behalf of the State, a contention has been raised that the petitioner who is only a member has no locus standi to file the writ petition inasmuch as it has not been shown how he would be directly prejudiced by the enrolment of the new members. The 2nd respondent has raised another contention that if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the enrolment of the new members it is a matter for challenge before the Registrar in election case, or the arbitration as provided under S.69 of the Act. I do not propose to enter upon the merit of these contentions inasmuch as I am satisfied that in enrolling the members after he took office he has only exercised the right vested in him, and he has not acted in excess of the right conferred on him under the provisions of the Act, the Rules, the bye-laws, and Ext. P1 order of appointment. P1 order of appointment. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, however, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Dismissed.