ORDER:- Exts. P12 and P12 (a) are under challenge. 2. Facts : The management of the third respondent society vests in the committee constituted under clause 16(1) of the byelaws. This clause reads:-- "The power to conduct the affairs of the Society, subject to the decisions of the general body for the time being, shall be vested in a governing council. The governing council shall have not more than nine members of whom one seat shall be reserved for Harijans and another seat for women. Seven members of the governing council shall be elected by the general body from among the A-Class members, and the other members shall be nominated by the Joint Registrar from the panel to be submitted by the B-Class members. There will be 9 members on the committee; out of which 7 will be elected by the general body from A class members; and 2 from B class members will be nominated by the Joint Registrar following the procedure indicated hereunder : The first petitioner company would submit a panel to the Joint Registrar and the Joint Registrar in his turn would nominate two from out of the names included in the panel. 3. Petitioners 2 and 3 are two such nominated members of the committee and they ceased to be members on the coming into force of Act 19/1987, the learned counsel for the society argues. On the other hand the counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner company has the right to nominate 2 members to the managing committee the term of office of petitioners 2 and 3 would get terminated on the coming into force of Act 19/ 87. In support of this contention he relied on a clause in the substituted bye-laws. The substituted bye-law, it is further submitted, has done away with the procedure prescribed by the unamended bye-law for the submission of a panel to the Joint Registrar enabling him to nominate the members. This substituted bye-law however enabled the company to directly nominate two persons to the committee, the counsel submits. 4. The question therefore is, has the first petitioner company the right to nominate members to the committee after the coming into force of Act 19 / 87 with effect from 25-8-1987. We have in this connection to refer to the third proviso to Section 28 of The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, for short. The Act. 4. The question therefore is, has the first petitioner company the right to nominate members to the committee after the coming into force of Act 19 / 87 with effect from 25-8-1987. We have in this connection to refer to the third proviso to Section 28 of The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, for short. The Act. I shall now extract relevant part of the said proviso: "Provided also that any member nominated to the committee of a society and holding office at the commencement of the Kerala Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1987, shall- (a) if that committee is not the first committee, cease to hold such office at such commencement; and .............................................................................. As already noted, prior to the incorporation of this amended provision the proviso read as follows:- "Provided further that where the bye-laws so provide, the Government or the Registrar may nominate all or of any of the members of the committee for such period as may be specified in the bye-laws." This proviso, as rightly contended for by the counsel for respondents 1 to 3, enabled the Government or the Registrar to nominate any of the members of the committee for such period as may be specified in the bye-laws. But, after the incorporation of the new proviso in the place of the old one, whatever be the provision in the bye-laws governing the power of the Government or the Registrar to nominate members of the committee, no managing committee shall have any nominated member. If that be not the meaning that is conveyed by this amendment, one fails to see why clause (a) of the proviso is worded as follows namely "cease to hold such office at such commencement". To put it briefly, after the introduction of the new proviso no committee to manage the affairs of a society except those recognised under Section 31, shall have nominated members. That is the intention of the legislature is obvious from the relevant provisions of Act 19/87, amending The Co-operative Societies Act. Any bye-law, which runs counter to the above provisions of law therefore must be held to be of no consequence at all. They are ineffective. The said bye-laws, after the introduction of the proviso by Act 19 / 87, must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed. 5. Any bye-law, which runs counter to the above provisions of law therefore must be held to be of no consequence at all. They are ineffective. The said bye-laws, after the introduction of the proviso by Act 19 / 87, must be deemed to have been impliedly repealed. 5. So far as the case on hand is concerned, I am of the view that there is no such bye-law enabling the nomination of a member to the committees by the management. The bye-law relied on by the first petitioner to sustain its plea that it has the right to nominate members to the committee, in fact has not been passed by the general body. The society in fact made available the minutes of the general body meetings for scrutiny and on going through the same I am convinced that the bye-law relied on by the first petitioner company has not been passed by the general body. The O. P. is without merits. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Issue photostat copy on usual terms. Petition dismissed.