Judgment :- 1. This original petition by the Ponnani P. C. C. Marketing Society Ltd. represented by its President is to quash Ext. P7 order of the respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Malappuram cancelling Ext. P2 resolution of the committee of the society in exercise of the powers vested in the Registrar under R.176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The facts of the case are not in dispute. An elected member of the committee by name T. P. Abdu died. As provided for in bye-law No. 17 of the Bye-laws of the Society, the committee co-opted another member on 28-7-1982. Ext. P1, is an extract of bye-law No. 17. Ext. P2 dated 28-7-82 is a copy of the resolution of the society to co-opt Shri Vettom Veettil Kunju Mohammed to the committee of the society in the vacancy caused on account of the death of a member of the committee by name T.P. Abdu. The respondent issued Ext. P5 notice dated 8-3-1983 to the Secretary of the Society, requiring him to show cause why Ext. P2 resolution should not be cancelled in exercise of the powers of the Registrar under R.176 for the reason that the bye-law providing for co-option is ultra vires to S.28 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Secretary submitted a reply Ext. P6 dated 15-3-1983 wherein he has raised the contention that bye-law 17 is not in any way repugnant to S.28 or any other provision of the Act or the Rules. It is also stated that there had been instances in the Society of such co-option of members to the committee on the death of some of the members on previous occasions. The respondent Joint Registrar by Ext. P7 order dated 29-3-1983 has cancelled resolution No. 22 dated 28-7-1982 of the committee of the society (a copy of which is produced as Ext. P2) holding that bye-law No. 17 is ultra vires to S.28(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The expression "bye-laws" is defined in clause (b) of S.2 to mean the registered bye-laws of a Co-operative Society for the time being in force. S.7 of the Act empowers the Registrar to register a society and its bye-laws and S.12 enacts that no amendment of any bye-law of a society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered under the Act. S.7 of the Act empowers the Registrar to register a society and its bye-laws and S.12 enacts that no amendment of any bye-law of a society shall be valid unless such amendment has been registered under the Act. Sub-s. (1) of S.110 repeals the enactments mentioned therein including the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 under which the petitioner society was registered. Clause (ii) of sub-s. (2) of S.110 is extracted below: "any society existing in the State on the date of the commencement of this Act which has been registered or deemed to be registered under any of the aforesaid repealed Acts shall be deemed to be registered under this Act; and the bye-laws of such society shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force until altered or rescinded." The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 came into force on 15-5-1969. Bye-law No. 17 for co-option of members to the vacancies arising in the committee of a society was introduced by amendment of the bye-laws carried out in 1966 and was duly approved by the department on 12-3-1966 as can be gathered from Ext. P7 order itself. Bye-law No. 17 is therefore an existing bye-law on the date on which the Kerala Co operative Societies Act came into force and by virtue of the provisions of S.110 of the Act shall be deemed to be registered under the Kerala Act. The only question therefore is as to whether bye-law No. 17 providing for co-option to the vacancies arising in the committee is repugnant to S.28(1) of the Act or the Rules made under the Act. As per sub-s. (1) of S.27 the final authority of a society shall vest in the general body of its members subject to the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the bye-laws. The authority of the general body is circumscribed by the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws. Sub-s. (1) of S.28 and its second proviso are extracted below: "28 Appointment of committee. The authority of the general body is circumscribed by the provisions of the Act, the rules and the bye-laws. Sub-s. (1) of S.28 and its second proviso are extracted below: "28 Appointment of committee. (1) The general body of a society shall constitute a committee in accordance with the bye laws and entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee: Provided further that where the bye laws so provide, the Government or the Registrar may nominate all or any of the members of the committee for such period as may be specified in the bye laws." The second proviso extracted above operates in constituting the committee as provided for in sub-s. (1). The power to constitute a committee subject to the proviso is given to the general body. It is such a committee constituted by the general body that is functioning in the society. Sub-s. (1) of S.28 does not require the general body to fill up vacancies in the committee already constituted by it. The expression "constitute" appearing in sub-s. (1) of S.28 has reference to the committee and not to a casual vacancy in the committee on account of death or resignation of a member of the committee. The New Websters Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition gives the following meaning to the word "constitute" at page 342: "To compose; form; to appoint to an office or function; make or create; as, to be constituted captain; to set up or establish; give legal form to; to make up or form of elements or material." Under S.13 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 1125 the power conferred under the Act may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires. There can therefore be no doubt that the general body will have the power to constitute a committee as and when occasion requires. Such power as the general body is given under sub-s. (1) of S.28 does not however relate to the filling up of casual vacancies arising in the committee. Sub-rule (5) of R.38 provides for election by the general body to fill up casual vacancies arising on account of resignation of members of the Committee. The rule is silent about the casual vacancy on account of death of an existing member. Sub-rule (5) of R.38 provides for election by the general body to fill up casual vacancies arising on account of resignation of members of the Committee. The rule is silent about the casual vacancy on account of death of an existing member. The final authority of the general body as is referred to in sub-s. (1) of S.27 is subject also to the bye-laws of the society. Bye-law 17 specifically provides for co-option by the committee of a member to fill up a casual vacancy in the committee. Bye-law 17 will have no operation to fill up a casual vacancy on account of resignation of a member of the committee as the process of filling up such vacancy is specifically provided for in sub-rule (5) of R.38, but it does not follow that the bye-law will not apply in case of a vacancy by death. The second proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.28 empowering the Government or the Registrar to nominate all or any of the members to the committee if the bye-law so provides does not in any way indicate that even if the bye-law provides for filling up a casual vacancy by co-option, the said bye-law cannot have any operation. Since I do not see any repugnancy in the continued operation of bye-law No. 17 insofar as it provides for co-option to vacancies arising on account of death of an existing member of the committee, the impugned order of the respondent cannot be sustained. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under S.83(1) 0) of the Act. An order under R.176 cancelling a resolution is not specifically made appealable under the Act. Under S.83(1)0) any order made by any person exercising all or any of the powers of the Registrar is appealable to the Registrar. It is submitted that the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies who passed the impugned order is a person exercising the powers of the Registrar under the Act, and hence Ext. P7 order is appealable to the Registrar. Since the question involved in this original petition is purely a question of law relating to the interpretation of sub-s. (1) of S.28 of the Act, I do not think that the alternative remedy of an appeal under S.83 can bar the present writ petition. The result therefore is, I quash Ext. P7 order is appealable to the Registrar. Since the question involved in this original petition is purely a question of law relating to the interpretation of sub-s. (1) of S.28 of the Act, I do not think that the alternative remedy of an appeal under S.83 can bar the present writ petition. The result therefore is, I quash Ext. P7 order and allow the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Allowed.