JUDGMENT : 1. By its resolution dated 22nd October, 1991 a Cooperative Society passed a motion of no-confidence in the Petitioner as a Chairman of that society. In the same meeting a successor to the Petitioner was elected. The legality of both the transaction is being questioned in the present petition. 2. The "specified authority" convened the meeting of the Co-operative Society on 22nd October, 1991. He nominated one Shri A.K. Singh as the officer to preside over the said meeting. Time and place of the meeting was fixed. All the fourteen members of the society were present in the meeting. The motion of no-confidence was put to vote. It was carried by a majority. The result of the voting was announced. Thereafter the successor of the Petitioner was elected. 3. The following submissions have been made in support of this petition. (1) The notice convening the meeting on 22nd October, 1991 did not provide that in the event of the no-confidence motion being duly carried. The election of the new Chairman should be held in the same meeting (Rule 458(2). Hence no valid meeting took place in the eye of law (2) In any view of the matter, the election of the successor was bad for what of notice under Rule 458(2), (3) The Petitioner was not given due notice of the meeting of 22nd October, 1991. We shall deal with these submission seriatim. 4. Sub-rule (1) Rule 458, inter alia, provides that the specified authority shall convene a meeting for the purpose of consideration of the proposed no-confidence motion. The proviso to it enjoins that at least thirty days notice shall be given for such meeting. Sub-rule (2) posits that the notice for meeting under Sub-rule (1), shall also provide that in the event of the no-confidence motion being duly carried, election of the new chairman shall also be held in the same meeting Sub-rule (1) of Rule 459 lays down, interalia, that the specified authority shall also nominate any gazetted Government Servant to act as a Presiding Officer of the meeting in which the resolution for no-confidence shall be considered. Rule 461 says that when a resolution for no-confidence is carried, the Chairman against whom it is carried shall cease to hold that office forthwith and shall be succeeded by his successor, who shall be elected by another resolution in the same meeting. Rule 461 says that when a resolution for no-confidence is carried, the Chairman against whom it is carried shall cease to hold that office forthwith and shall be succeeded by his successor, who shall be elected by another resolution in the same meeting. Rule 462 says, inter alia that election of the new Chairman under Rule 461, shall be conducted in the meeting under the chairmanship of the Presiding Officer referred to in Rule 459. 5. Re. Contention 1. There is no defect in the notice issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 458. Indeed, that is not the case of the Petitioner. Sub-rule (2), it will be seen merely mandates that in addition to the contents of the notice under Sub-rule (1) it shall also provide that in the event of the success of the no confidence motion, a successor to the Chairman shall be elected in the same meeting. No invalidity, therefore, can be attached so far as the meeting to consider the no confidence motion in the Petitioner was concerned and also to the proceedings in that meeting. Thus the resolution of the Co-operation Society, expressing want of confidence in the Petitioner did not suffer from any legal infirmity. 6. Re. Contention 2. We have referred to Rule 461 which says, inter alia, that once a motion of no-confidence in a Chairman is carried he shall immediately cease to hold that office and he shall be succeeded by his successor who shall be elected by another resolution in the same meeting. Thus the statute required the holding of the election of a successor in the same meeting wherein the motion of no-confidence in the Chairman was to be considered. This was the requirement of law. It will, therefore, be presumed that the members of the Cooperative Society had implied notice that if the motion of no-confidence in the Petitioner is carried the election of his successor shall take place on the same day and in the same meeting. It is true that it was the requirement of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 458 that the notice issued under Sub-rule (I) with respect to the motion of no-confidence against the Petitioner should have also provided that in the event of passage of the non-confidence in the Petitioner his successor shall he elected in the same meeting. This provision, in our opinion, if read along with the contents of Rule 461. This provision, in our opinion, if read along with the contents of Rule 461. has been inserted by the rule making authority by way of abundant caution. We have already indicated that all the fourteen members of the Society were present in the meeting held on 22nd October, 1991. 7. Reading the scheme of Rule 455 to 465, which fall in Part VII and are headed as "Removal of Chairman or Vice-Chairman by Vote of No-Confidence", it is apparent that the emphasis is that there should be no hiatus between the exit of an existing chairman by way of no-confidence and the election of a successor. Of course, there has got to be a rational time lag. If that is the intendment of the rule making authority, it is apparent that the members of the Cooperative Society will be presumed to have known that intendment and, therefore, the member who had notice of the date and time of the meeting wherein the motion of no-confidence in the Petitioner was to be considered, had also due notice of the fact that if the motion of no-confidence was to be carried, another Chairman was to be elected in the same meeting. 8. In Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normadin (1917) AC 170, it was held "when the provisions of a statute related to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not or promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only." The main object of the rule making authority appears to be that the members of the society should have due notice of the date, time and place of the meeting wherein motion of no-confidence in the chairman is to be considered, the motion should be discussed and voted upon in a democratic manner and thereafter, if necessary a successor Chairman should also be elected in a democratic manner. This is precisely what happened in the present case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in taking in view that. This is precisely what happened in the present case. Therefore, we have no hesitation in taking in view that. non-compliance of Sub-rule (2) of Role 458 was neither mandatory nor failure to comply with the same vitiated the proceedings resulting in the election of a successor to the Petitioner. We are also not impressed with the submission that Shri A.K. Singh could not have held the election of a successor of the Petitioner. Rule 462 makes it clear that there will be no change in the Presiding Officer Rule 459 to conduct the proceedings with respect to the motion of no-confidence in a Chairman will ipso facto have jurisdiction to preside and conduct the meeting for electing a successor to the Chairman who has been voted out 9. Re. Contention 3. It is emphasised that the Petitioner did not have a clear thirty days notice as mandated in the proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 458. The word "such" in the proviso is referable to the meeting referred to in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 458, namely the one wherein the motion of no confidence is to be considered. It is not the case of the Petitioner that a period of thirty days did not intervene between the date of the issue of the notice by the "specified authority" and the date of meeting viz. 22nd October, 1991. In paragraph 20 of the petition it is averred that he was given notice on 5th October, 1991. Annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit is a communication sent by the Petitioner on 9th October, 1991 to the District Magistrate wherein he stated that he got the notice on 4th October, 1991. The two versions, therefore, are contradictory to each other. Moreover, we have already emphasised that the Petitioner was present in the meeting when the motion of no-confidence in him was put to vote. Curiously enough, he did not raise an objection before the Presiding Officer that he did not receive due notice. In these circumstances, legality apart, we do not consider it a fit case for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that the Petitioner did not have due notice of the meeting. 10. The petition fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs. The interim order dated 29th October, 1991 is vacated.