JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:--In this petition there involves a short but important question relating to the interpretation of the words "in addition" as used in sub-section (2) of section 73-B as well as section 73-BBB of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner Society is a society registered under the Act. Section 73-B of the Act provides for reservation of seats on committees of certain societies for Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and members of weaker sections. Section 73-BBB of the Act provides for the reservation of seats for women on the committee of the society who represent the women members, according to the strength of the members of the committee. Bye-laws of the petitioner society do not provide for such reservation, even though the provision relevant to reservation of seats as above is mandatory. On the eve of the election of the petitioner Society, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by his letter dated June, 18, 1992 brought to the notice of the Society the above requirement and adviced the society to amend the Bye-laws of the Society suitably making the statutory provision applicable in the Bye-laws. Therefore, in its Special General Body Meeting of the society held on September 24, 1992, the society amended the Bye-law No. 10(1) of the Society providing reservation of seats on the committee members of the society as required under section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act. Approval to the amended Bye-laws has also been accorded by the Assistant Registrar, but the same has been challenged in Appeal under section 152 of the Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, inter alia on the ground that though the reservation is properly made in the Bye-laws, the amendment is, however, not consistent with the provisions of the Act and the change in the Bye-laws has resulted into disportion between the individual members and the societies constituencies. 2. The Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by his impugned order set aside the approval to the amendment of the Society's Bye-laws so far it affects the original strength of Board of Directors for individual members as well as societies constituencies. The Divisional Joint Registrar, took the view that there is a disportion between the individual members and the societies constituencies, in as much as the number of members from individual shareholders exceeded than the Co-operative Societies Constituencies. The Divisional Joint Registrar, took the view that there is a disportion between the individual members and the societies constituencies, in as much as the number of members from individual shareholders exceeded than the Co-operative Societies Constituencies. Moreover, according to the Divisional Joint Registrar, the provisions contained in section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act require that the reserved seats should be "in addition" to the existing strength of the members of the Managing Committee and it is not proper to reduce the representation of individual shareholders and/or increase the representation in case of Co-operative Societies constituencies by making provision for reservations in the Bye-laws. It has, therefore, been directed that the society to maintain the constitution of the Managing Committee of the Society as it was prior to the amendment to the Bye-laws of the Society and to amend the Bye-laws with a provision that the reservation of seats to the aforesaid categories should be "in addition" to the existing strength of the Managing Committee of the Society. 3. That direction of the Divisional Joint Registrar is questioned in this writ petition. 4. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised several contentions. Firstly, it has been urged that it is entirely within the province of the society to amend its Bye-laws by virtue of Bye-law No. 22 read with Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. The Divisional Joint Registrar, therefore, has no jurisdiction to invalidate the amendment which has been effected by the Society in its Bye-laws to provide for reservation as contemplated by section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act. It has been submitted that provisions of section 73-B and 73-BBB do not lay down any procedure as to how the provision in the Bye-law of the Society should be made for reservation for those categories of members and the very fact that the reservation has been made in the Bye-laws of the Society as required under the provisions of the Act, there would arise no need to have the reserved seats to be added to the existing Board of Directors as additional seats. It has, therefore, been contended that the Divisional Joint Registrar has fallen into an error in interpreting the provisions of section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act. 5. It has, therefore, been contended that the Divisional Joint Registrar has fallen into an error in interpreting the provisions of section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act. 5. In this context it has also been submitted that the General Body of the Society is a supreme and the Resolution to represent on the Board of Directors either from the individual members or societies constituencies, in order to preserve its interest of both the categories of members, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the General Body of the society and when the General Body of the society in its wisdom has decided that instead of 7 members from individual members constituencies there should be a representation of 8 members on the Board, including reserved category of individual members constituency and likewise instead of 6 Directors of Co-operative Constituencies there should be 7 directors from Co-operative Societies constituencies, the Divisional Joint Registrar had no power or authority to insist that there should be a representation from the reserved category members in addition to the existing Individual Members Constituencies and Co-operative Societies Constituencies. It has been contended that on this ground alone the impugned order deserved to be set aside. The learned Counsel further contended that the members representing the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Weaker Sections and Women categories are mainly from individual members constituencies and all the members of the petitioner society including the voters from Societies Constituencies will be voting for these reserved categories directors and as such there would be no prejudice whatsoever caused to the individual members when original strength of individual members is reduced. It has been submitted that in the event of the total number of Directors is increased from 15 to 19, the Board of Directors is bound to quietly unwield and for that reason also the impugned order would be improper. 6. Shri Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader strongly urged that the view taken by the Divisional Joint Registrar is perfectly correct. 6. Shri Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader strongly urged that the view taken by the Divisional Joint Registrar is perfectly correct. It has been submitted that from the plain reading of section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act, the intention of the legislature is clear that where there is no provision in the Bye-laws of the Society, the only procedure to be followed by the society to amend its bye-laws is to make provision for reservation of these seats, "in addition" to the existing strength of the members of the managing committee of the society. Therefore, it is not open for the Society to make the provision of reservation in the Bye-laws by mere adjustment of the members of the Managing Committee. The procedure adopted by the Society is not consistent with the provision contained in section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act. 7. Shri Bhamburkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 supported the submission of Shri Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 8. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be convenient to reproduce the provisions of section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act, so far as they are relevant to the issue : "73-B (1) :: :: :: (2) The two reserved seats referred to in sub-section (1), shall unless where the bye-laws of the society already provide for the reserved seats, be in addition to the strength of the members of the committee of such a society or class of societies. (3) :: ::: :: (4) :: ::: :: Explanation : :: ::" "73-BBB (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in the rules made thereunder, or in the bye-laws of any society, there shall be reserved seats for women on the committee of each society to represent the women members in the following manner, namely :- (a) one seat on the committee consisting of not more than 9 committee members; (b) two seats on the committee consisting of 10 or more, but not exceeding 19 committee members; and (c) three seats on the committee consisting of 20 or more committee members, (2) The reserved seats referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the strength of the members of the committee of a society; Provided that, where the bye-laws of a society provide for reservation of seats for women on the committee thereof, the total number of seats to be so reserved for women shall not exceed the number of seats specified in sub-section (1), in which case there may or may not then be any addition to the strength of members of the committee. (emphasis supplied) (3) :: :: :: (4) :: :: :: (5) :: :: :: (6) :: :: :: (7) :: :: :: (8) :: :: ::" 9. It may be stated that section 73-B was substituted for original by Maharashtra Act 45 of 1983, whereas sub-section (2) of section 73-B has been inserted by section 5 of Maharashtra Act 18 of 1984. Section 73-BBB was, however, enacted by Amendment Act, 1991. Before insertion of sub-section (2) of section 73-B, the Constitution of the Committee is to be completed by co-option or appointment of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or weaker sections referred to in section 73-B, without first holding election to elect persons to the reserved seats. In the case of (Babaji Kondaji Garad v. The Nasik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nasik)1, 1984 C.T.J. 211 : 1984(1) Bom.C.R. 399 (S.C.), the Supreme Court, while construing the provisions of section 73-B, has observed that the language and the chronology and the methodology of filling in reserved seats employed in section 73-B provide a clue to its correct construction and there should be no doubt that opportunity must be provided for filling the seats by election. It has also observed that the statutory provision has precedence and must be complied with. It has also observed that the statutory provision has precedence and must be complied with. Therefore, sub-section (2) of section 73-B came to be inserted in 1984. It is settled principle of law that when statutes requires certain things to be done in certain manner, it can be done in that manner alone unless a contrary indication is to be found in the statute. Sub-section (2) of section 73-B as hereinabove quoted provides that unless where the Bye-laws of the Society already provide for the reserved seat, the two reserved seats to which election, if any, held shall be in addition to the strength of the Members of the Committee of such society or class of societies. Similarly, section 73-BBB provides that there shall be reserved seats for women on the Committee of each society to represent the women members in the manner set out in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) provides that the reserved seats referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the strength of the members of the Committee of the Society. The Proviso to sub-section (2) further provides that, where the Bye-laws of the Society provide for reservation of seats for women on the Committee thereof, the total number of seats to be so reserved for women shall not exceed the number of seats specified in sub-section (1), in which case there may or may not then be any addition to the strength of members of the Committee. The general rule of interpretation is that, the words, phrases and sentences of a Statute are ordinarily to be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular and grammatical meaning only, unless such a construction relates to an absurdity or the context or object of the Statute suggests a different meaning. In other words, the general rule is verbis legis nonest recedendum - You must not vary the words of a statute. The Court should not make any interpretation contrary to the express words of an enactment. Speech after all is the index of the mind. It will be seen that the word "in addition" to the strength of the members of the committee of such society occurs more than once if sub-section (2) of section 73-B and 73-BBB are taken into account. Speech after all is the index of the mind. It will be seen that the word "in addition" to the strength of the members of the committee of such society occurs more than once if sub-section (2) of section 73-B and 73-BBB are taken into account. The word which occurs more than once in the same Act should be given the same meaning throughout the Act, unless the context shows that the Legislature used the word in a different sense. I think the intention of the Legislature is best declared by the words themselves. The words "reserved seats" referred to in sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the strength of the members of the Committee of the society, must be taken to be used ordinarily in the sense they bore at the time of their introduction. It is, however, subject to the condition that the Bye-laws of the Society do not already provide for reservation of seats on the committee of the society for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and/or members of the weaker section and election thereto or for reservation of seats for women on the committee thereof prior to the commencement of section 73-B of section 73-BBB, as the case may be. It cannot be forgotton that it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed in the words used by the legislature and no outside consideration can be called in aid to find out that intention. Therefore, the words "in addition to" must be construed as the language in its plain meaning imports. There is, therefore, little doubt that sub-section (2) of section 73-B as well as section 73-BBB makes it mandatory to provide reserved seats "in addition to" the strength of the members of the managing committee of a Society unless where the Bye-laws of the society already provide for the reservation of the seats. In the instant case, the Bye-laws of the petitioner society prior to its amendment to bye-laws 10(1) do not provide for reserved seats as required under section 73-B or 73-BBB of the Act, and therefore, it was incumbent on the petitioner society to make a provision for reserved seats in addition to the strength of the existing members of the committee of the society. Sub-section (2) of section 73-B as well as section 73-BBB of the Act clearly lays down a procedure as to how the reserved seats referred to by sub-section (1) of section 73-B or sub-section (1) of section 73-BBB shall be made. It lays down that the reserved seats should be made in addition to the strength of the committee of the society. That means in addition to the strength of the members of the society at present. Section 73-BBB of the Act clearly is in favour of the widening of the strength of the members of the committee of the society. The provision of reservation as contained in sub-section (2) of section, 73-B as well as 73-BBB of the Act is in the nature of expansion of the strength of the members of the committee of the society provided where the bye-laws of the society do not provide for reservation of seats on the committee thereof earlier. That provision does not restrict the original strength of the members of the committee, but makes addition thereto by inclusion. The word, "in addition to" is synonimous to word "include" and such word in the statutory interpretation is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the preceding words and it is by way of expansion, and not with restriction. In view of the well accepted statutory construction, it must be held that the word "in addition" to the strength of the members of the committee of the society must be construed to mean that the reserved seats shall be made in addition to the existing strength of the number of members of the committee of the society where bye-laws of the society do not already provide for such reservation of seats. 10. It is true that Bye-law No. 22 of the society empowers the society to amend its bye-laws. But that again is subject to the approval of the authority. Any provision in the bye-law which is not consistent with the statutory requirement will not be valid in law. No doubt, the amendment to the Bye-laws of the petitioner society merely provides for reserved seats as required under section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act, but the procedure adopted for making provision in the bye-laws for reserved seats cannot be said to be consistent with the procedure contemplated by the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act. 11. 11. The petitioner society has four kinds of membership. (i) Individual producer members. (ii) Co-operative Societies. (iii) State Government. (iv) Nominal members. Prior to its amendment to Bye-law No. 10(1), the Board of Directors was of 15 members elected as under : (i) Directors elected from individual members ... 7 (ii) Directors elected from Co-operative Societies Constituencies ... 6 (iii) Government Representatives ... 1 (iv) Representative of District Central Co-operative Bank ... 1 Total = 15 After the amendment incorporated by Bye-law No. 10(1)(a), the break-up of the Directors to be elected is given as under : (A) Directors of individual members ... 4 (B) Directors from Co-operative Societies. ... 6 (C) Director from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories ... 1 (D) Director from weaker section of the society ... 1 (E) Director from representatives of women ... 2 (F) Director from State Government nominee ... 1 (G) Representative from District Central Co-operative Bank ... 1 Total ... 16 12. It will be seen that the strength of Directors from individual members is reduced to 4 from 7, whereas the Directors from Societies constituencies is increased by one seat. The effect of the amendment to the Bye-law 10(1)(a) suggests nothing more than of adjustment of seats from the existing strength of the members of the committee of the society. It is seen from the true import of sub-section (2) of section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act that the provisions of the Act require that reserved seats should be provided in addition to the strength of the members of the committee of the society. Therefore, bye-law of the society as amended for making provision for reservation of seats cannot be said to be consistent with the relevant provisions of sub-section (2) of section 73-B and 73-BBB of the Act. It is true that the general body is supreme in preserving its interest in respect of its members as a whole. But that does not necessarily mean that the amendment sought could be accepted which is not consistent with the provisions of the Act. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel of the petitioner that no prejudice would be caused to the individual members by reducing their strength. It is not shown how equitable representation on the managing committee could be maintained between the individual shareholders and Co-operative Societies Constituencies in proportion to their involvement. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel of the petitioner that no prejudice would be caused to the individual members by reducing their strength. It is not shown how equitable representation on the managing committee could be maintained between the individual shareholders and Co-operative Societies Constituencies in proportion to their involvement. Apart from that the society would not be justified in reducing the strength of the members of the committee while providing reservation to the different categories of members without adding those reserved seats to the existing strength of the members of the Committee of the society. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Vishwanath Jairam Ghopde v. Collector, Wardha)2, 1987 Mh.L.J. 597 : 1987(1) Bom.C.R. 716, had an occasion to deal with the provisions of section 73-B after its amendment in 1984. This Court while considering the various provisions of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 1983-84 and examining the objects and reasons of the 1983 and the interpretation put on section 73-B by the Supreme Court, in the case cited supra has observed that section 73-B came to be further amended by inserting sub-section (2) of section 73-B with a view to provide two reserved seats "in addition to" the strength of the committee unless where the bye-laws of the society already provide for such reservation. Similarly, the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 73-BBB can be interpreted in like manner. There is, therefore, no scope for argument that the general body of the society could amend its bye-laws so as to adjust the reserved seats from the existing strength of the members of the managing committee of the society. On the contrary, sub-section (2) of section 73-B as well as section 73-BBB of the Act restricts the power of the general body of the society to amend its bye-laws contrary to the mandate contained therein. Merely because the present amended bye-laws of the society provide for reservation of seats is not enough. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner society to amend its bye-laws by providing additional seats for the members of reserved categories "in addition to" the strength of the existing members of the managing committee of the society. Therefore, the view taken by the Divisional Joint Registrar, cannot be said to be contrary to law. 13. It is obligatory on the part of the petitioner society to amend its bye-laws by providing additional seats for the members of reserved categories "in addition to" the strength of the existing members of the managing committee of the society. Therefore, the view taken by the Divisional Joint Registrar, cannot be said to be contrary to law. 13. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if additional seats are provided for reserved categories in addition to the existing strength of the members of the committee, the Board of Directors would be unwieldy of uncontrollable, having regard to the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 14. There is, therefore, no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order. The result is that, petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.