Judgment :- ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) EXT. PI is the notification issued by the Returning Officer for conducting election to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent, co-operative Bank. As per the schedule mentioned in Ext. PI, nomination papers are to be submitted on or before 18-8-1994, 19-8-1994 is the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination and 20-8- 94 is the last date for withdrawal. After security, the 4th respondent, Returning Officer finalised the list of contesting candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they submitted their nominations, both the nominations were rejected by the Returning officer without communicating any reason to them. ( 3 ) THE prayer in this original petition is for calling the records dealing with the rejection of the petitioners nomination papers and quash the same by a writ of certiorari and for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent. Returning Officer to include the name of the petitioners' in the list of candidates in the ballot paper in the election to be conducted on 11-9-1994 and make alteration in the ballot paper. When the original petition came up for admission before me on 31- 8-1994, I directed the learned government Pleader to get instructions. When the matter came up for further hearing today the learned Government Pleader on instruction submitted that the rejection of the 1st petitioner's nomination is for a valid reason namely that he did not mention in the nomination paper specifically in the Ward to which he is contesting in the election, which is a mandatory requirement. Learned Government Pleader submits that altogether there are 9- wards, out of which there are 7 general wards. Two wards are reserved, one (each) for scheduled castes and scheduled tribe and the other for women candidates. (2) Admittedly, the 1st petitioner was contesting to the general ward. Nomination contains a specific column, being column No. 3 wherein the contesting candidate is directed to give details of the ward to which he is contesting. In column No. 3, instead of indicating the specific ward to which the 1st petitioner seeks to contest in the election, all that is mentioned is 'general'. Nomination contains a specific column, being column No. 3 wherein the contesting candidate is directed to give details of the ward to which he is contesting. In column No. 3, instead of indicating the specific ward to which the 1st petitioner seeks to contest in the election, all that is mentioned is 'general'. According to me, the 1st petitioner's nomination paper is liable to be rejected as his nomination paper is vague as to the ward to which the 1st petitioner seeks to contest. Therefore, I am of the view that the Returning Officer was right in rejecting the 1st petitioner's nomination and the 1st petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this court. ( 4 ) AS regards the 2nd petitioner, the ground for the rejection of his nomination is that his "brother's wife" is employed in the 5th respondent, bank, as such he is disqualified under Rule 44 (2) (b) of the Kerala cooperative Societies Rules which says that no member of the society shall be eligible for being elected or appointed as a member of the Committee of the society under Section 28 if he (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b) is a near relative of a paid employee of the Society. Therefore the question to be considered is whether the 2nd petitioner has incurred any disqualification under Rule 44 (1) (b ). This will depend upon the question whether he is a near relative of a paid employee of the society. For the purpose of Clause (b) of sub-rule 1 of rule 44 the near relations shall be the following as mentioned in explanation I of Rule 44 (3) of the Rules. 16. Wife's brother. 17. Wife's sister. Going by the explanation, the 2nd petitioner can be disqualified only if he is a near relative of a paid employee of the society as explained in explanation to Rule 44 (3) of the Rules. It is nobody's case that the 2nd petitioner, "wife's brother' is a paid employee of the 5th respondent Bank nor the 2nd petitioner, 'wife's sister' is a paid employee of the 5th respondent Bank. In the explanation to Rule 44 (3) "brother's wife" is not categorised as a near relative even though 'wife's brother' and wife's sister' have been categorised as a near relative. In the explanation to Rule 44 (3) "brother's wife" is not categorised as a near relative even though 'wife's brother' and wife's sister' have been categorised as a near relative. In these matters the authorities have to proceed strictly according to the rules. Nothing has to be inferred or added or deleted Going by the explanation, I am of the view that the 2nd petitioner is not liable to incur disqualification for the reason that his 'brother's wife is not a near relation catalogued under explanation to Rule 44 (3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. In the above view of the matter. I hold that the rejection of the 2nd petitioner's nomination paper cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 4th respondent Returning Officer to accept the 2nd petitioner's nomination and to include his name in the list of candidates in the ballot papers for the election to be conducted on 11-9-1994. The original petition is allowed as above. Allowed.