M. P. CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE above two petitions are disposed of by the following common order as the question of law and facts are similar. The question of law which falls to be answered in these writ petitions is whether carrying on the business of money lending as licensed under the Kar. Money Lenders Act amounts to carrying on the business of the 3rd respondent-Co-operative Bank Ltd ( 2 ) THE facts are that the two petitioners were founder members of the 3rd respondent-Co-operative Bank Ltd. After becoming members they also started their own money lending business after obtaining the licence under the Money Lenders act. They became partners in different firms which had secured licence for money lending business. Both of them contested the office of the directors of the 3rd respondent-Co-operative Bank Ltd. At that point of time they sought clarification from the 2nd respondent Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tumkur as to their eligibility to contest the office. They were informed by him as evidenced by Annexure - B in W. P. No. 19235/1984 that they were eligible. Acting on such advice they contested and became directors. Thereafterwards, on a complaint made, the Assistant Registrar of co-operative Societies, Tumkur, 1st respondent herein, has disqualified them in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 17 (1) (c) as well as Sec. 29c (1) (c) of the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 r. 35 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). On appeal, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies-2nd respondent has confirmed the order of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies disqualifying the petitioners from being members of the Co-operative Bank Ltd. , as well as holding the office of the director. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitions are filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the Co-operative Bank does business of money lending with capital borrowed from out-side whereas the firms of which the petitioners are members use the funds of the partners to lend and therefore there is difference in the business carried on by the 3rd respondent-Co-operative Bank Ltd and the firms of which the two petitioners are members. ( 3 ) MR. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the definition of 'banking' in Sec. 2 (a) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit guarantee Corporation Act, 1961. ( 3 ) MR. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, has relied upon the definition of 'banking' in Sec. 2 (a) of the Deposit Insurance and Credit guarantee Corporation Act, 1961. In the said Act the word 'banking' means the accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise. The Court is informed that similar is the definition of 'banking' under the provisions of the Banking Regulations act. The Act (Co-operative Societies act) does not define the word 'banking' but a co-operative bank is defined and its activity is 'banking' as defined under the aforementioned Act from which the definition has been culled-out. The concise Oxford Dictionary gives noun and verable sense as also fishing in the sea. Bank itself has several meanings one of which is keep bank, trade in money, commercial firm that does some banking; keep money at bank. ( 4 ) FROM the above it is clear 'banking' whether legally defined or otherwise is no more than trading in money in the context of lending. Trade is carried on for purpose of making profit. Sometimes it is referred to as the business. If undisputedly the firms of which the petitioners are partners carry on business or trade in money then they are doing the samething which the 3rd respondent-Bank is doing. It does not make any difference where the capital for lending money come from as long as the object of the firm is to lend money in order to make profits and carry on business. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, I do not find any error in the conclusions reached by the 1st and the 2nd respondents in their respective orders which is in conformity with the definition of lending money under the karnstaka Money Lenders Act. ( 6 ) THE petitions are therefore dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. --- *** --- .