Judgment :- Petitioners are members of the Kanjirappally Central Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (third respondent). By virtue of S.28A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the term of office of the Managing Committee of the Bank was reduced to three years from five years. As a result of it, the management of the Bank was taken over by an Administrator. 2. Election was held on 13-9-1992. Case of the petitioners is that as per Ext. P-1 notice meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 17-9-1992 and for election for the President ship one among them (5th respondent) was chosen by the Committee to preside over the meeting as per rules. Fifth respondent acted as the Presiding Officer. Names of three persons viz. first petitioner, 6th respondent and 8th respondent were proposed for Presidentship. 8th respondent withdrew from the contest. In the election first petitioner got five votes whereas 6th respondent got only four votes and that the first respondent was elected as the President. Under the Presidentship of the first petitioner second petitioner was elected as the Vice-President he getting five votes as against the 7th respondent, the rival candidate getting only four votes. Administrator, who was present throughout the election proceedings, handed over the charge to the first petitioner. 3. Petitioners allege that the 8th respondent who supported them in the election defected from their side and joined the opposite camp and filed a complaint before the second respondent denying the election held on 17-94992. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kanjirappally (second respondent) issued Ext. P3 notice stating that the meeting of the Managing Committee shall not be held till a decision is taken on the complaint filed by the 8th respondent, Contention of the petitioners is that the elections to the posts of President and Vice-President were held properly and they were legally elected and hence Ext. P-3 order of the second respondent is totally unsustainable. 4,. Respondents 4 to 8 filed counter-affidavit denying the allegation that the election was properly held. They contended that Ext. P2 minutes book is a fabricated document created by the petitioners with the help of the Secretary of the Bank and that the petitioners and the Secretary with ulterior motives created it to obtain undue advantage to the petitioners. 5. 4,. Respondents 4 to 8 filed counter-affidavit denying the allegation that the election was properly held. They contended that Ext. P2 minutes book is a fabricated document created by the petitioners with the help of the Secretary of the Bank and that the petitioners and the Secretary with ulterior motives created it to obtain undue advantage to the petitioners. 5. Election is challenged by the respondents on the ground that it is in gross violation of Rule 43 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules as no nomination papers were submitted by any candidate to the Presiding Officer and as the poll was not conducted under secret ballot system. Ext. R4(a) is the petition filed by respondents 4 to 8 stating that the alleged election was only a farce. 6. Rule 43 envisages the procedure for conducting the election of the President, Vice-President, Treasurer or any other officer by whatever name he is designated. The Rule is a mandatory one. It states that as soon as a new committee is constituted, a meeting of the members of the new committee shall be convened. The meeting shall be presided over by a Presiding Officer chosen by the committee from the non-contestants. Rule 43 (4) provides that the nomination papers shall be presented to the Presiding Officer at the meeting. It is for the Presiding Officer to decide the objections, if any, to any nomination after making such summary enquiry as he thinks necessary and announce the name or names of the eligible candidate or candidates. Rule 43(6) postulates that where there is more than one valid nomination for any office, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith arrange for taking a poll by providing the ballot papers and ballot box. Sub-rule (6) gives sufficient indication as to how a member has to cast his vote in the ballot paper. The member has to make the mark'Xin the ballot paper against the name or names of the candidate or candidates for whom he desires to vote and put the ballot paper into the ballot box with utmost secrecy. 7. R.43 (6) makes no room for doubt that the election should be held in utmost secrecy. Even as per the averments in the petition it can be seen that no secrecy was maintained in the matter of polling. It is admitted that the election was held by show of hands. 7. R.43 (6) makes no room for doubt that the election should be held in utmost secrecy. Even as per the averments in the petition it can be seen that no secrecy was maintained in the matter of polling. It is admitted that the election was held by show of hands. If that be so, it can never be held that the election was held with secrecy as enjoined under Rule 43(6). When Rule 43(6) mandates that election must be held with utmost secrecy, it cannot be ignored under any circumstances. 8. Contention of the petitioners that election by show of hands is not prohibited by Rule 43 (6) and so it cannot be held invalid is a difficult proposition to be accepted. When rule 43 (contemplates secrecy in the election, omission to mention the consequences of any contravention cannot be considered to be of any significance. When Rule enjoins a particular thing to be done in a particular manner and if that Rule is mandatory in nature, it will have to be strictly complied with. Contention that the Rule does not specifically mention that any contravention of the Rule is bad and so in view of it failure to follow the secret ballot system cannot affect the election of the petitioners is not tenable. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on S.105 of the Act contended that the election of the petitioners cannot be invalidated merely on account of the fact that it was not held in secrecy. S.105 is to the effect that no act of a society or any committee or of any officer shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the existence of any defect in the constitution of the society or the committee or in the appointment or election of the officer or on the ground that such Officer was disqualified for his appointment. The Section cannot have any application to a case where elections of President and Vice-President were held in utter disregard of Rule 43(6). 9. Petitioners seek a declaration that sub-rules (6) to (9) of Rule 43 are ultra vires and hence not valid. It is urged that S.109 does not enable the Government to make any rule with regard to the election of the President or Vice-President and so sub-rules (6) to (9) of Rule 43 cannot have any legal force. 9. Petitioners seek a declaration that sub-rules (6) to (9) of Rule 43 are ultra vires and hence not valid. It is urged that S.109 does not enable the Government to make any rule with regard to the election of the President or Vice-President and so sub-rules (6) to (9) of Rule 43 cannot have any legal force. S.109(1) provides that the Government may, for the whole or any part of the State and for any class of societies, after previous publication, by notification in the Gazette, make rules either prospectively or retrospectively to carry out the purposes of the Act. S.109(2) slates that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the enumerated matters. It is pointed out that the election of members of the committee by the general body of a society is enumerated under S.109(2) whereas the election of the President and Vice President is not so stated and the Society need not adhere to Rule 43(6). S.109(2)(xxxviii) empowers the Government to make rules for any other matter required or allowed by the Act to be prescribed. Elections of President and Vice-President squarely come under S.109(2)(xxxviii). It is beyond comprehension to hold that rule regarding election of President and Vice-President does not come under S.109(2)(xxxviii). Election of President and Vice-President alone cannot be left to the discretion of each society when the Act deals comprehensively with all matters connected with the society. This cannot be left to each society to be decided by its own byelaws. Uniform procedure is necessary and in that regard importance and significance of rule 43(6) cannot be lost sight of. Merely because the election of the President and Vice-President is not specifically enumerated under S.109(2) it cannot be held that Rule 43(6) is ultra vires. There is no merit in the O.P. Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the O.P. The O.P. is dismissed. No costs.