Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, CJ. Appellants (petitioners) filed O.P.8623 of 1995 to quash Ext. P-2 order passed by the Returning Officer appointed for conducting the election to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent-Co-operative Society. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination on the ground that the appellants are not entitled to contest in the election in view of Clause 21(1)(i) of the Bye-laws of the Society. As per the said clause, a member of the committee is not entitled to contest in the election without previous sanction of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies if he was a member of the committee for two consecutive terms. Admittedly the appellants have already completed two consecutive terms in the committee of the Society when they submitted nomination paper for the election. Appellants contended mat rejection of the nomination is illegal and therefore first respondent should be directed to accept the nomination submitted by them without obtaining previous sanction from the Deputy Registrar. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition holding that rejection of the nomination of the appellants is justified and does not warrant interference. 2. Rule 44(1)(m) of Co-operative Societies Rules disqualified a member of the Society to contest for election as a member of the Committee if he had been a member of the Committee for two consecutive terms (whether for the full term of each Committee or only for part of the terms of both or any one of them) and a period of two years has not elapsed Itom the date of expiry of the latter of such term, unless he obtains previous exemption from the Registrar to stand for election. This clause has been omitted by S.R.O.16/81 published in the Kerala Gazette No.1 dated 6-1-1981. Appellants contended that Clause 21(1)(i) of the Bye-laws of the Society being contrary fo the provisions in the Co-operative Societies Rules cannot be relied on for rejecting the nomination submitted by them. 3. Rule 44 deals with disqualification of membership of the Committee of the Society. The disqualifications mentioned in rule 44 cannot be taken as exhaustive as there can be other disqualifications which are outside the purview of the Rule. They can certainly be incorporated lawfully in the bye-laws of particular societies depending upon situations in which they are placed. 3. Rule 44 deals with disqualification of membership of the Committee of the Society. The disqualifications mentioned in rule 44 cannot be taken as exhaustive as there can be other disqualifications which are outside the purview of the Rule. They can certainly be incorporated lawfully in the bye-laws of particular societies depending upon situations in which they are placed. Merely because Rule 44(1)(m) has been deleted it does not follow that a society is bound to fall in line by making suitable amendments in its bye-laws. There may be instances where peculiar features of particular societies require special qualifications or disqualifications for membership of the managing committee. These can be worked out only in bye-laws. As this is the prime concern of the society it is for the society to have its own bye-laws. Rule 5 only lays down that bye-laws of a society should not be contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. It empowers the society to deal with all or any of the matters particularly specified. As it would not be possible for the Government to provide for all possible contingencies or to meet all possible situations in framing rules, bye-laws which are not contrary to the Act and Rules cannot be ignored on the ground that a particular Rule which contained similar provision as in a bye-law has been deleted. The argument of the appellants that Clause 21(1)(i) of the Bye-laws of the Society which was in conformity with the Rule 44(1)(m) of the Rules has become ultra-vires of the rules and hence it cannot be given effect to cannot be accepted. Undoubtedly Clause 21(1)(i) embodies the provisions of Rule 44(1)(m). There is no legal bar to the 2nd respondent-Society in retaining the provisions in Clause 21(1)(i) of the Bye-laws even though Rule 4491)(m) has been omitted by notification. That being the position, Clause 21(1)(i) of the Bye-laws cannot just be ignored. 4. So long as there is nothing in the Act and the Rules to indicate that Clause 21(1)(i) of the Bye-laws is inconsistent with the Act and the Rules, it is not possible for us to hold that the rejection of the nomination paper of the appellants on the ground that it violated the provisions of the Bye-laws is without jurisdiction. So long as there is nothing in the Act and the Rules to indicate that Clause 21(1)(i) of the Bye-laws is inconsistent with the Act and the Rules, it is not possible for us to hold that the rejection of the nomination paper of the appellants on the ground that it violated the provisions of the Bye-laws is without jurisdiction. As the appellants have already completed as members of the Committee of the Society for two consecutive terms and as they have not obtained previous permission from the Deputy Registrar or Joint Registrar to contest for the election scheduled, rejection of the nomination paper cannot be-assailed. There is no merit in the Writ Appeal. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.