Judgment :- 1. A copy of the original petition is served on the learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. I find it unnecessary to issue notice to others. 2. Petitioner claims to be a member of the first respondent Neeloor Service Co-operative Bank Limited. The Board of Directors or the Managing Committee of the bank is to consist of 13 elected members besides nominees of the Government. The society elected the Managing Committee last on 16-6-1985. Term of office of the Managing Committee is five years. Out of the 13 elected members five have been disqualified and three resigned. Thus only five members of the committee are left. Therefore as per Ext. P1 order dated 22-6-1987 second respondent appointed an Administrator in the place of the Managing Committee under S.33 of the Co-operative Societies Act to act till 31-10-1987 and directed him to arrange, conduct of election before the expiry of his term of office. The Administrator took necessary steps for conduct of election. Second respondent, Returning Officer, was appointed. He has issued Ext P2 election notice dated 31-7-1987 for conduct of election to the new Managing Committee. Polling is to fake place on 30-8-1987. Petitioner has filed this original petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India seeking issue of a writ of quo warranto against the second respondent to show under what authority he appointed an Administrator, seeking writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P1 and P2, seeking declaration that five members are sufficient to constitute quorum for the Managing Committee, seeking declaration that the prohibition in R.44(1)(k) of the Co-operative Societies Rules is applicable to the contingencies under S.32 and 33 of the Act and seeking declaration that respondents 4 to 16 are not entitled to seek re-election to the Director Board of the first respondent bank within one year from the date of Ext. P1 in view of the prohibition in R.44(1)(k) of the Rules and seeking writ of mandamus prohibiting respondents 9 to 11 who resigned without any reason from seeking re-election to the Director Board of the first respondent bank. 3. The last Managing Committee of the first respondent was constituted in June 1985. Its term of office is five years. Therefore, naturally Managing Committee could have continued office till June 1989. Respondents 4 to 16 were the elected members of the committee. 3. The last Managing Committee of the first respondent was constituted in June 1985. Its term of office is five years. Therefore, naturally Managing Committee could have continued office till June 1989. Respondents 4 to 16 were the elected members of the committee. Of them five have been disqualified and three resigned leaving only five members. Second respondent, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, statutory authority, took the view that five falls below the quorum prescribed for the meeting of the Managing Committee and therefore the Managing Committee has become nonfunctio-nable and accordingly under Ext. P1 order appointed an Administrator for the back under S.33 of the Act. The main challenge in the original petition is against thin order. S.33 deals with appointment of new committee or administrator on failure to constitute committee etc. Sub-s. (1) contemplates several contingencies where the Registrar may either suo motu or on the application of any member of the society after intimating the Circle Co-operative Union appoint new committee consisting of not more than three members of the society or appoint one or more administrator or administrators who need not be a member or members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society till a new committee enters upon office. One of the contingencies contemplated is "where vacancies occur in the committee either by resignation or otherwise and the number of remaining members cannot constitute the quorum for the meeting of the committee". Admittedly eight out of thirteen members of the committee have ceased to be members either by resignation or otherwise. Only five members are left. The question is whether the five members can or cannot constitute quorum for the meeting of the Managing Committee. 4. Ext. P3 is a true extract of bye-laws Nos 26 and 38 of the bank. Bye-law 26 prescribes quorum for the general body meeting as one third of the members of the bank or twenty five whichever is less. We are not concerned with the quorum prescribed for the general body. Bye-law 38(b) reads: (If more than one half of the members of the Director Board attend a meeting of the Board, at that meeting the Board can take decision on any matter). 5. According to the petitioner, bye-law 38(b) is not a prescription of quorum. We are not concerned with the quorum prescribed for the general body. Bye-law 38(b) reads: (If more than one half of the members of the Director Board attend a meeting of the Board, at that meeting the Board can take decision on any matter). 5. According to the petitioner, bye-law 38(b) is not a prescription of quorum. Since quorum for the meeting of the Managing Committee is not prescribed in the bye-laws, petitioner would contend that the bye-laws do not prescribe a quorum for the meeting of the Managing Committee. Bye-law 38(b) states that where more than one half of the members of the Managing Committee are present in a meeting of the committee, that meeting can take decision on any matter. Though the word 'quorum' is not used in the bye-law, it appears to me that the provision is prescription of quorum. In Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings, Sixth Edition, at page 43, it is stated that "the word 'quorum' denotes the number of members of any body of persons whose presence at a meeting is requisite in order that business may be validly transacted and that its acts may be legal." Bye-law 38(b) in substance prescribes the number of members of the Managing Committee whose presence at a meeting is requisite in order that business may be validly transacted and so as to enable the meeting to take decision on any matter. Instead of indicating the exact number who should be present at a meeting, bye-law 38(b) states that more than one half of the number of members must be present. Since the committee consists of thirteen members, minimum number of members whose presence is necessary to constitute the quorum of the committee is seven. This is a sufficient prescription of quorum. I therefore reject the contention that the bye-law does not prescribe quorum. 6. The second respondent was therefore right in his conclusion that by disqualification and by resignation vacancies have occurred in the committee and the number of remaining members of the Managing Committee cannot constitute quorum for the meeting. Therefore the condition requisite for invoking S.33 of the Act did arise in the instant case. I find no ground to quash Ext. P1 order appointing Administrator, or to issue writ of quo warranto against the second respondent. 7. Ext. Therefore the condition requisite for invoking S.33 of the Act did arise in the instant case. I find no ground to quash Ext. P1 order appointing Administrator, or to issue writ of quo warranto against the second respondent. 7. Ext. P2 is the election notice issued by the Returning Officer duly appointed by the second respondent. If the condition contemplated in subsection (1) of S.33 exists, the Registrar has to appoint an Administrator to manage the affairs of the society till a new committee enters upon office. One of the main functions of the Administrator is to arrange election of the new committee as per the terms of the bye-laws. That is what he did by fixing the date for election and requesting the Joint Registrar to appoint Returning Officer. The Joint Registrar has appointed the Returning Officer and the latter has issued Ext.P2 election notice. I find no legal infirmity in the notice, even assuming that this court can interfere with the election notice issued by the Returning Officer. Petitioner would contend that five members are sufficient to constitute quorum for the meeting of the Managing Committee. I have already indicated that bye-law 38(b) prescribes quorum for the Managing Committee and the quorum prescribed is seven. Therefore five members are not sufficient to constitute quorum. 8. R.44 of the Rules deals with disqualification from membership of the committee. R.44(1)(k) states that no member of the society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of the committee of the society under S.28 if he was a member of the committee which has been superseded and a period of one year has not elapsed from the date of supersession. According to the petitioner, pre-existing Managing Committee of the bank has been superseded by Ext. P1 order under S.33 of the Act and respondents 4 to 16 who were members of the superseded committee, are not eligible for being elected in any election which takes place within one year of Ext. P1. Therefore, it is pointed out, they are not eligible to be candidates for the ensuing election. The expression 'supersession' is not found any where in S 33 of the Act. It is found only in S.32 of the Act, S.32 contemplates supersession of the Managing Committee on the Registrar being satisfied about the existence of the conditions prescribed in sub-section (1) of S.32. The expression 'supersession' is not found any where in S 33 of the Act. It is found only in S.32 of the Act, S.32 contemplates supersession of the Managing Committee on the Registrar being satisfied about the existence of the conditions prescribed in sub-section (1) of S.32. Nevertheless, according to the petitioner, when an Administrator is appointed under S.33, that involves supersession of the committee and therefore respondents 4 to 16 are not eligible to contest. This is an objection which has to be taken at the first instance before the Returning Officer. If the objection is not accepted, it is open to the petitioner to file an election case under S.69 of the Act. I do not think I can grant any relief to the petitioner in this petition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner finally contended that election is unnecessary and the bank, which is already running at a loss, should not be burdened with the expenses of election. It is unfortunate that five members of the committee should so conduct themselves as to incur disqualification and three members resigned; evidently three members wanted to bring about the stalemate and compel appointment of an Administrator and re-election. This is happening in a large number of co-operative societies, as could be seen from the original petitions being filed in this court. The law permits members of the Managing Committee to resign. The law compels members incurring disqualification to be disqualified. These are healthy provisions in the Act. If these provisions are being misused as pointed out by the petitioner that is an unfortunate state of affairs. But there is a limit to what this court can do in such situation. It is also difficult to accept that once the committee ceased to function, Administrator appointed should be allowed to function till the period of office of the pre-existing committee lasts. That would go against the principle of democratic functioning of the co-operative institutions. 10. In the result, the original petition is dismissed.