Judgment :- Petitioner in this Original Petition seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext. P1 notification issued by the returning officer for the conduct of the election to the Trichur whole-sale Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd. No. R.239, Trichur. He has also prayed for stay of all further proceedings in the matter in respect of the said election. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the first respondent not to conduct the election. Petitioner is a member of the said society. According to turn, the society is a primary society and Ext. P1 notification issued by the returning officer without making a reservation for scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes and also for women as contemplated under S.28A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner also has staled that there is every chance of manipulation of the identity card issued by the controlling authority since the date of birth is not shown in many of the identity cards and therefore, a fair election may not be possible. 2. When the matter has come up before this Court on 20-6-1995, this Court directed the Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter. When the matter is taken up today, learned Government Pleader has submitted that the 2nd respondent society is not a primary credit co-operative society and therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge the election on the ground of violation of S.28A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 3. S.28 A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. provides for reservation for a. member belonging to a scheduled caste and scheduled tribe in the committee of every primary credit society, every District Co-operative Bank, the Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Therefore, the reservation for scheduled caste and schedule tribe member and for Women contemplated under S.28A of the Act confines only to primary credit co-operative societies and the specific type of societies which were made mention in the said section. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent society comes under the primary credit society. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent society comes under the primary credit society. 4. Primary credit a co-operative society has been defined in the Act under S.2(a) as a society other than an apex or central society which has its principal object the raising of funds to be lent to its members. From the byelaw of the 3rd respondent society, it can be clearly seen that the principal object of the society is not raising funds to be lent to its members. On the other hand, it is only for purchasing and distributing wholesale items to its members at a reasonable price. Therefore, even though wholesale cooperative consumer store collects money from its members for the purpose of-purchasing and sale of articles for wholesale, it cannot be said that the principal object of the said society is raising funds to be lent to its members which would attract the provisions of S.28A of the Act. 5. Moreover, under Rule 15 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, the societies are classified. In the said classification, consumer societies are classified as item No. 4 whereas credit societies are specified in item No. 2. Prima facie, 2nd respondent society comes under the category No. 4(b), consumer society including the District Cooperative stores. In the -light of the above provision, there is no justification for the petitioner to complaint that S.28A of the Act has not been complied with. 1 see no justification to sustain the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner and to stay the election or interfere with the said election. 7. The next contention raised by the learned counsel is that there is every chance of misusing the identity card because of the absence of date of birth in some of the identity cards. In the election; the contesting candidates are represented by their agents " and the candidates themselves would be present in the election. Therefore, the chance of identity of voters is not difficult and impersonation would be rather difficult. Under such circumstances, mere is no justification for this Court to interfere with the election on the ground that there is a possibility of misrepresentation and impersonation of a voter in the ejection. There is no merit in the Original Petition and hence the same is dismissed.