Judgment :- The construction of sub-section (5) of S.28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity the act) is in issue in this writ petition filed by a member of the managing committee of the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd., the third respondent (hereinafter referred to as the society), a co-operative society registered under the Act. The sub section reads: "(5) The quorum for a meeting of a committee shall be such number of members just above fifty per cent of the total number of members of that committee." The number of members of the managing committee of the third respondent society is eleven, as per bye law 15 of the society. Bye law 34 has fixed the quorum for a meeting of the managing committee at seven. Subjection (5) of S.28 was introduced later in the Act by Amendment Act 19 of 1987, with effect from August 25, 1987. It was agreed on all sides that it is this sub section that governs the matter and that the question of quorum has to be decided with reference to it, irrespective of anything stated in the bye law, though according to the petitioner, there is no conflict between bye law 34 and this sub-section (5). It is accordingly the case of the petitioner that the quorum for a meeting of the managing committee of the society is seven, while according to the respondents, it is only six. That is the question to be resolved, and since all parties swear only by subsection (5), I shall proceed to consider the question with reference to that provision, but before doing so, it is necessary to suite the events which led to the filing of this writ petition. 2. There was a meeting of the managing committee fixed for February 24,1993, at which a visiting team of inspecting officials from the Reserve Bank of India were also present for discussion. Nine members of the managing committee including the petitioner, one Thomas Mathew and one Mathews P. Abraham were present. The meeting started with the usual silent prayer after which notice of the meeting was recorded. The President welcomed the Reserve Bank team, after which there was a discussion with the members of the team in which all the members of the committee participated. The meeting started with the usual silent prayer after which notice of the meeting was recorded. The President welcomed the Reserve Bank team, after which there was a discussion with the members of the team in which all the members of the committee participated. The team then left, and when the meeting was sought to be continued for consideration of the items in the agenda, Thomas Mathew raised objection to its continuance stating that though himself, the petitioner and Mathews P. Abraham had participated in the discussion with the Reserve Bank team, which was item No.1 in the agenda, they had not signed their attendance and therefore only six members could be deemed to be present, who could not constitute the necessary quorum for a meeting. The President gave a detailed ruling overruling the objection, whereupon Thomas Mathew expressed his disagreement with it and left the meeting, followed by the petitioner and Mathews P. Abraham. The meeting continued with the other six members in accordance with the President's ruling. A copy of the minutes of themeetingis Ext. P2. The petitioner and his compeers moved the Joint Registrar under R.176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules to rescind the resolutions passed at the meeting on the ground of illegality for want of quorum. While that was pending, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent gave a ruling Ext. P4 that the quorum for a meeting of the managing committee of the society was only six. Petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P4 and seeking a direction to the Joint Registrar to rescind the resolutions contained in Ext. P2. 3. The petitioner's case is based on sub-section (5) of S.28. It was clarified before me that if the said provision required only a quorum of six, petitioner has no alternate contention based on bye law 34 having regard to the decision in Jinadevan v. State, 1993(2) KLJ 70. 4. The petitioner's contention is simple. The quorum for a meeting of the managing committee shall be such number of members just above fifty per cent of the total number of members of the committee. Since the provision speaks with reference to the human beings, fifty per cent has to be rounded to the next integer and since the quorum has to be just above that, you must add one to this integer and reach the quorum. Since the provision speaks with reference to the human beings, fifty per cent has to be rounded to the next integer and since the quorum has to be just above that, you must add one to this integer and reach the quorum. Fifty per cent of eleven is 5.5 which when rounded becomes six, to which when one is added we reach seven. This is the quorum. So goes the arithmetic and the logic. 5. I do not find much of difficulty in rejecting this contention. The steps for ascertaining the quorum are clear. The total number of members of the committee is first taken. That is eleven. (The apparent contra decision is Subair Kunju v. Trivandruam Taluk M&P Co-op. Society, 1990(2) KLT 548 has been explained by the same learned judge in O.P.No.1853 of 1990). the second step is a simple arithmetical calculation of fifty per cent of this number. That is 5.5. The third step is to fix the integer above this number. That is six. That is the quorum under sub-section (5) of S.28. 6. Stress was laid by counsel for petitioner on the expression "such number of members" occurring in the sub-section. According to him, this implied a whole number just above fifty per cent, as there cannot be a half human being or member, to which one has to be added to arrive at the quorum. But I find no difficulty on this score, in the way I have analysed the provision. 7. Nor do I find any anomaly or absurdity in this view as contended by counsel for the petitioner. According to him, if the quorum is six for a committee of eleven, it will be six for a committee often also. True, but that will be the case even on the basis of the petitioner's contentions. If the quorum for a eleven member committee is seven, it will be so for a twelve member committee also. The real anomaly lies in accepting the petitioner's contention, e.g. for a small committee of three members, the entire committee alone can constitute the quorum. 8. The view which I have taken finds support in the decision of the Division Bench in W. A.No.104 of 1991 (to which I was a party) where it was laid down inter alia that the quorum under sub-section (5) of S.28 for a committee of ten or eleven was six. 9. 8. The view which I have taken finds support in the decision of the Division Bench in W. A.No.104 of 1991 (to which I was a party) where it was laid down inter alia that the quorum under sub-section (5) of S.28 for a committee of ten or eleven was six. 9. There is therefore no substance in the plea of the petitioner that the meeting on February 24,1993 was not properly held. This is sufficient to entail dismissal of the writ petition. But I am also of the opinion that the petitioner is one of those who does not deserve the indulgence of the discretionary jurisdiction of this court under Art.226 of the Constitution. He is a responsible member of the managing committee of a Co-operative Bank. The meeting of the committee is convened to transact the business of the Bank. The petitioner, Thomas Mathew and Mathews P. Abraham are physically present, take part in the preliminary proceedings and in the discussions with the Reserve Bank team. They do not however sign the attendance register and refuse to take part in the further deliberations of the committee on the agenda, on the specious plea that though physically present, still they are not present, since they had not recorded their presence. This is not a case where they walk out on any difference of opinion. This is a case- of their being physically present, but still claiming not to be present. Absolutely no reason has been stated why they could not take part in the further deliberations at the meeting. The attitude was evidently one of non-cooperation for reasons known to them. As members of the committee, it was their duty to participate in the meeting and offer their views whether they are accepted or not. Instead of that, what the petitioner did was to shy away from the meeting after artificially attempting to make the meeting, though unsuccessfully, depleted of quorum. As members of a multi member committee the petitioner must have learned it early that one's views may not always be accepted and that tolerance of the opposite view is a sine qua non for the successful and effective functioning of the committee. Art.226 is not intended for such men who shirk their responsibility and indulge in what, in my opinion, is luxury litigation such as this. I have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition. Art.226 is not intended for such men who shirk their responsibility and indulge in what, in my opinion, is luxury litigation such as this. I have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.