Judgment :- 1. The learned judge by the judgment under appeal held that the first limb of R.160 (1) (d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the "Rules") was invalid. That is the only question which now arises in this appeal. 2. S.89 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the "Act") provides: "89. Establishment of State Co-operative Union. (1) The Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, establish a State Co-operative Union. (2) The State Co-operative Union shall consist of (a) a general body; and (b) a managing committee. (3) (4) The managing committee referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall consist of the following members, namely; (a) (b) (c) two members elected in such manner as may be prescribed by the delegates of the District Co-operative Banks from among themselves; This Section thus provides that the managing committee which is one of the constituents of the State Co-operative Union shall consist of, among others, two members elected by the delegates of the District Co-operative Banks from among themselves. The manner in which that election has to be held is prescribed by the Rules. R.158 relates to the conduct of election. R.160 provides for rejection of ballot papers in certain cases. It says: "160. Rejection of ballot papers (1) A ballot paper shall be rejected: (a) (b) (c) (d) if the voter has not voted for such number of candidates as are to be elected or voted for more candidates than the number required to be elected." (emphasis supplied) The first limb of clause (d) of R.160, which we have underlined, has been declared by the learned judge to be invalid. But the challenge against the validity of the second limb of clause (d) was rightly, in our view, rejected by the learned judge. 3. It is contended by the Government Pleader that an election would be futile if two candidates are not elected from among the delegates of the District Co-operative Banks as postulated under S.84 (4) (c). If votes are cast for only one candidate, and no vote is cast for any other candidate, the Government Pleader says, a fresh election would have to be held to elect one more candidate from among the total number of candidates. This hypothesis, as Shri. K. G. Kannanthanam appearing for the respondents rightly points out, is totally unrealistic. 4. If votes are cast for only one candidate, and no vote is cast for any other candidate, the Government Pleader says, a fresh election would have to be held to elect one more candidate from among the total number of candidates. This hypothesis, as Shri. K. G. Kannanthanam appearing for the respondents rightly points out, is totally unrealistic. 4. If there are only two candidates, both would be elected uncontested. If there are more than two candidates, two among them have to be declared elected. Assuming that all the voters, other than the contesting candidates themselves, cast their votes for one candidate, there will at any rate be one vote for each of the other candidates, for presumably each of them will vote for himself. The extreme contingency of the candidate himself not voting for him, as a result of which, all the votes are cast for one candidate alone, is far too remote a possibility to be taken note of for the purpose of considering the validity of the relevant Rule. Assuming that all but one of the candidates get only one vote each, the problem can be settled by lots as provided under R.159. The apprehension expressed by the Government Pleader is, in our view, totally misguided. 5. The question, however, is as regards the validity of the provision held to be invalid by the learned Judge. The Government Pleader says that there is no common law right to vote and a voter has only such right as is recognised by the statute. The Act provides that the election shall be held in the manner prescribed. The Rule has prescribed the manner and that cannot, he says, be questioned. 6. It is true that the right to vote is derived from the statute. It is open to the legislature, subject to constitutional inhibitions, to lay down conditions subject to which the right to vote can be exercised. The Rules must however be in harmony with the statute. The statute has delegated power to the rules making authority to carry out the purpose of the Act. Any restriction which does not lend aid to carry out the purpose of the Act, but which merely restrains the rights of a voter, unmindful of the object of the Act, would be ultra vires. 7. The statute has delegated power to the rules making authority to carry out the purpose of the Act. Any restriction which does not lend aid to carry out the purpose of the Act, but which merely restrains the rights of a voter, unmindful of the object of the Act, would be ultra vires. 7. The Act only says that two members shall be elected by the delegates of the District Co-operative Banks from among themselves. That does not mean that a delegate can be directly or indirectly compelled to vote for a candidate for whom he doss not wish to vote. It is true that there is no mandate that each delegate must vote. But the effect of invalidating a vote cast only for one candidate, and not for two candidates, is to indirectly compel the voter to vote for a candidate he does not want to support. In other words, he may either not vote at all or he must necessarily vote for two candidates. This is an unreasonable restraint on the freedom of the voter, because it is not a prescription in aid of the section which says that two members shall represent the delegates of the Co-operative Banks. As we have stated earlier, the apprehension that all the votes will be cast in favour of one candidate is so irrational and unreasonable that it does not deserve to be taken into account in interpreting the provisions or in considering their validity. Any uncalled for and needless restriction imposed under the Rules is a prescription contrary to the mandate of the legislature. 8. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the first limb of R.160(1) (d) which reads "if the voter has not voted for such number of candidates as are to be elected" is null and void and of no effect. This was rightly so held by the learned Judge. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.