JUDGMENT : Yashoda Nandan, J. The Petitioner was elected as Chairman of a Cooperative Society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the 11th March, 1978. On the 3rd September, 1979 one Sri Shyam Lal, Director of the Society, presented an application for moving a motion of no-confidence against him and the application admittedly was signed by the requisite number of Directors of the Society. The District Magistrate, Kanpur (Respondent No. 4) fixed 14th November, 1979 for consideration by the Committee of Management of the Society the proposed motion of no-confidence against the Petitioner and appointed the Tahsildar, Bhognipur, District Kanpur, as “Specified Authority” to conduct the meeting. A true copy of the notice dated 8th October, 1979 issued by the District Magistrate has been annexed to the petition as Annexure 1. By means of this petition, the Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 8th October, 1979. There is a further prayer for the issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to hold the meeting which was to be held on the 14th November, 1979. 2. When the writ petition was presented in this Court it was ordered to be listed for admission after the decision of another writ petition for reasons which have not been disclosed during the hearing of this petition for admission. On the same date an order was passed on the application for interim order directing that till further orders operation of the notice calling meeting of the Committee of Management for 14th November, 1979 for considering the motion of no-confidence against the Petitioner shall remain stayed. 3. The sole argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of this petition is that Rules 455 to 460 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule) which armed the Committee of Management with powers to remove the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of a Co-operative Society by means of a motion of no-confidence are ultra vires and beyond the scope of rule making power granted under the Act. The basic contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been that since Section 38 of the Act provides for the authority which can and the manner in which an Officer of a Co-operative Society can be removed it is not open to provide for the removal of an Officer of the Society by any other authority or in any other manner by means of subordinate legislation. There is, in our view, no substance in this contention. Section 4 of the Act provides that--(Section quoted--Editor). 4. Thus a Co-operative Society can be registered under the Act only if it has a democratic constitution. An organization with a democratic constitution must primarily provide that its office-bearers should be elected by a majority of those entitled to participate in the election. If an office-bearer loses the confidence of the majority of the electorate and yet is permitted to hold on to the office, it cannot be said that the organisation has a democratic constitution. Thus if a rule has been framed which empowers the Committee of Management of a Society to remove by a motion of no-confidence an office-bearer elected by itself, it is not possible to hold that the rule is one which offends Section 4 of the Act. According to Section 6(2) of the Act every application for registration of a Society under the Act has to be accompanied by three copies of its proposed bye-laws. According to Section 7, the Registrar before registering a Society has to satisfy himself that the objects of the proposed Society are in accordance with Section 4. The Registrar consequently has to be satisfied that the bye-laws provided for a democratic constitution of a society in accordance with Section 4 which has been quoted earlier. It thus appears to us that if by means of a bye-law a society makes provision for removal of its office-bearers by motion of no-confidence passed by its Committee of Management, such a bye-law would be one which cannot be considered to be beyond its powers. It thus appears to us that if by means of a bye-law a society makes provision for removal of its office-bearers by motion of no-confidence passed by its Committee of Management, such a bye-law would be one which cannot be considered to be beyond its powers. u/s 130(1) the State Government is empowered to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act and under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (2) thereof “in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power under Sub-section (1), it is empowered to make rules with regard to matters in respect of which a Co-operative Society shall or may make bye-laws.” We have already expressed the opinion that a bye-law empowering a Committee of Management to remove an office-bearer elected by itself, by means of a motion of no-confidence would be a valid bye-law since it would comply with the requirements of Section 4 of the Act. By reason of Section 130(2)(ii) consequently the State Government also, in our opinion, has power to frame rules of a similar character. In any event, one of the purposes of the Act is to ensure that Co-operative Societies registered under the Act have a democratic constitution. We have already held that a rule or bye-law providing for removal of office-bearers by means of a motion of no-confidence by the electorate cannot be considered to be undemocratic. An examination of various enactments made by the State Legislature providing for constitution of local bodies makes it clear that the legislature has considered such a power as one keeping with democratic ideals. The U.P. Municipalities Act, the U.P. Kshetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act all in the enactments themselves provide for removal of office-bearers by means of a motion of no-confidence. 5. The contention that because Section 38 of the Act itself provides for the authority and the manner in which an officer of a Society can be removed no rule can be framed creating another authority empowered to remove an office-bearer by some other procedure is, in our opinion, unsound. The removal of an office-bearer u/s 38 is by way of penal action. The removal of an office-bearer u/s 38 is by way of penal action. On the other hand, the removal of an office-bearer by means of a motion of no-confidence is not on account of any default on the part of an office-bearer but merely an expression of the fact that the office-bearer has ceased to enjoy the confidence of electorate. The two provisions operate in different spheres and the entirely different circumstances. Neither is in conflict with the other. 6. The petition, in our opinion, has no merits and is hereby rejected. Interim order dated 9th November, 1979, is hereby vacated. The District Magistrate is directed to convene a meeting for consideration of the proposed motion of no confidence at an early date.