ORDER:- All the above writ petitions relate to the common question in reference to the power and scope of the Returning Officer in considering the objections to the draft list of members. 2. Section 27 of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') states that the general body of the society is the final authority. Section 28 of the Act enables the general body to constitute a committee for a period not exceeding three years for the management of the affairs of the society. Rule 35 of the Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') sets out the procedure regarding the conduct of election to the committee of the socieites. Section 16 of the Act sets out the qualifications to become a member of the society. Similarly Rule 16 of the Rules sets out the conditions to be complied with for admission to membership. Clause (3) of Rule 16 states that where a person already admitted to membership is seen to have been ineligible for membership or if he subsequently becomes ineligible the committee of the society may remove the person from membership after giving him an opportunity for making representation, if any. Rule 26 of the Rules prohibits admission of members within 60 days prior to the date of election. Rule 27 prohibits a person to be member of two credit societies without sanction in writing of the Registrar. Rule 28 restricts the right of vote of a member unless he acquires the number of shares for membership before 30 days of the meeting fixed for any election to the committee. 3. Rule 35 of the Rules sets out a detailed procedure for the conduct of election to the Committee of societies. The question that arises for consideration is Rule 35(3)(b). As per this Rule, the committee in office shall prepare a list of members qualified to vote at the election 30 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. The said list shall be supplied to the Returning Officer, who shall publish copies of ths list as required. The list shall specify the admission number, name of the member, name of the father and the address of such member. The Returning Officer shall call for objections, if any, within 3 days of publication and after considering the objections he shall publish a final list of voters. The list shall specify the admission number, name of the member, name of the father and the address of such member. The Returning Officer shall call for objections, if any, within 3 days of publication and after considering the objections he shall publish a final list of voters. The publication of the draft notification should be 15 days prior of the date fixed for election and publication of final list should be 10 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. 4. A reading of this provision makes it clear that the existing committee shall have to prepare a list of members, who, according to them, are qualified to vote. The list that is published shall specify the admission number, name, father's name and address. Therefore, the objection is in reference to the qualification to vote and not the qualification to the membership. Rule 28 bars a member to vote if he had not acquired the required number of shares. Rule 27 prohibits two membership without permission. Rule 26 prohibits admission of members within 60 days prior to the date of election. In the context of these specific restrictions the Returning Officer may have to consider the objections and publish a final list. 5. In Kottappady Service Co-op. Bank v. Asst. Registrar (1994) 2 Ker L T 506, this Court while dealing with the power under Rule 35 held that the power of the Returning Officer is limited to make the voters list in accord with the membership roll, to supply omissions therein, delete duplications, correct mistakes in the details or remove admittedly dead persons and the like. It was held that removal of ineligible members is not within the purview of the Returning Officer. The learned Judge held that the power cannot be extended beyond this. I am in full agreement with the said view of the learned Judge. 6. Learned Govt. It was held that removal of ineligible members is not within the purview of the Returning Officer. The learned Judge held that the power cannot be extended beyond this. I am in full agreement with the said view of the learned Judge. 6. Learned Govt. Pleader brought to my notice a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Ramchandra G. Shinde v. State of Maharashtra (1993) 4 SCC 216 : (AIR 1994 SC 1673) where it was held that once the election process was set in motion according to law any illegality or irregularity committed while the election process is in progress or the conduct of the election is vitiated by any illegality or irregularity in its process, the proper remedy is to lay the action before the Tribunal constituted under that Act by means of an election petition and have the dispute adjudicated without the election process being interdicted or retarded midway. 7. Another decision referred to by the learned Government Pleader is Maphavan Namboodiri v. Kammaran (1992) 2 Ker LT 567, where a Division Bench of this Court held repelleing the contention that the voters' list was not properly prepared and many eligible voters were excluded, that this Court cannot go into the questions which are pure questions of fact, and the remedy of the appellant therein, ifhe is aggrieved, is to move an election petition under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. 8. Learned counsel for the some of the petitioners, Sri. M.K. Damodaran referred to the decision in Govindan v. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies, 1983 Ker L T 1038 : (AIR 1984 Kerala 26) where a learned single Judge of this Court held that if the violation is of a fundamental factor writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 can be invoked. In that case members who were admitted contrary to Rule 26(2) were permitted to vote at the election. Therefore, the learned Judge took the view that the violation complained of is fundamental and, therefore, a writ will lie. 9. Taking into account all these provisions it has to be held that the admission of members and the qualification of those members admitted cannot be gone into by the Returning Officer while considering the objections to the draft list of qualified voters. As against the qualification or disqualification of the members the remedy lies elsewhere and not before the Returning Officer. As against the qualification or disqualification of the members the remedy lies elsewhere and not before the Returning Officer. There is no bar for the society to admit members before sixty days of the date of election. If the members admitted are not qualified to be admitted, it is not for the returning Officer to go into that question. In the light of this conclusion we will consider the cases one by one. 10. O.P. Nos. 19723 and 20110/1995: Both these Original Petitions are filed in reference to the Udumpannoor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and, therefore, they are taken up together for consideration. In O.P. 19723/95 the prayer is for a direction to consider Ext.P2 representation and direct the respondent-Society to admit all eligible persons to the membership of the society whose applications are pending before the committee and for a direction not to appoint any Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Board before the application for membership pending before the society is properly considered. In O.P. 20110/95 the existing President of the Bank has filed the O.P. praying for a direction to appoint a Returning Officer to conduct the election and for a declaration to elect a new committee without reference to Ext.P3 notification issued by the Government extending the period of the committee by the another six months. 11. In reference to the above Bank the existing committee passed a resolution on 28-10-1995 proposing to hold the election to the Board on 7-1-1996. Even though the resolution was forwarded to the respondents, the 2nd respondent has not appointed a Returning Officer for the conduct of election. By virtue of the Division Bench judgment in O.P. No. 18241/95 etc. dated 20-12-1995 Ext.P3 notification of the Government in G.O. (P) No. 156/95/Co-op. dated 6-11-1995 has been heid to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and directions have been issued to the Registrars to hold elections immediately Consequently the prayer in O.P. No. 20110/95 has to be granted. The 2nd respondent directed to appoint a Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Managing Committee immediately. 12. The allegation in the other O.P. 19723/95 is that many of the members eligible for admission were not admitted to the membership of the society. The 2nd respondent directed to appoint a Returning Officer to conduct the election to the Managing Committee immediately. 12. The allegation in the other O.P. 19723/95 is that many of the members eligible for admission were not admitted to the membership of the society. The respondent-Bank submitted that in view of the resolution dated 28-10-1995 resolving to hold electlonta the committee, applications received up to 24-10-1995 were scrutinised and decisions were taken to admit the members. Now that no Returning Officer has been appointed and the election has not been announced, the respondent-Bank has no objection to consider all the pending applications for admmsion to the membership. Learned counsel for the Bank also argued that as per Rule 26 no member can be admitted within 60 days prior to the date of election and further there must be a minimum of 10 days before taking up he applications and consider the same. Therefore, the respondent-Bank has no objection to consider all the applications pending within the reasonable time. Accordingly O.P. No. 19723/95 is partially allowed directing the 3rd respondent-Bank to consider the pending applications for admission to membership in the light of the direction appoint a Returning Officer to hold the election in pursuance to the judgment of the Division Bench. The other prayer in the O.P. No. 19723/95 cannot be granted. 13. O.P. No. 19571/95: The prayer in the Original Petition is for a declaration to declare that 1666 members are not eligible to be the members of the 4th respondent-Bank and they are not entitled to participate in the election, and for a declaration to declare the election held on 31-1-1993 as null and void due to the participation of void voters and for a further declaration to declare that petitioners 1 to 7 in the election petition were duly elected. 14. With regard to the existing committee A.R.C. No. 815/93 is pending trial before the 2nd respondent. As the petitioner is participating in the trial in the A.R.C. the question relating to the election in the year 1993 will not arise for consideration in this case. In so far as the present election notified by the committee is concerned, the term of the committee will expire on 31-1-1996. Preliminary as well as final voters' lists were published and there are 14 candidates for 7 vacancies. In so far as the present election notified by the committee is concerned, the term of the committee will expire on 31-1-1996. Preliminary as well as final voters' lists were published and there are 14 candidates for 7 vacancies. According to the Secretary of the Bank none of the existing members are candidates for the election. The Returning Officer has also filed a counter stating that no specific allegation was made in respect of any member included in the preliminary list. Learned counsel was not able to point out any illegality in the finalisation of the list. Learned counsel submits that person who are not eligible to be admitted are now members of the Bank. That aspect may not come within the scope of the Returning Officer while finalising the voters' list. By a mere general allegation the members who are eligible to vote cannot be prevented from voting. The Returning Officer has also stated that the petitioner has not mentioned any specific complaint in respect of ineligibility of members admitted by the Board of Directors. The 1666 members mentioned in the petition is in reference to the last election in which an election petition is stili pending. As the election process is complete, there are no grounds to countenance the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to question the eligibility and qualification of members admitted as members of the Bank before an appropriate forum, the Original Petition is dismissed. 15. O.P. No. 19737/1995: The prayer in the Original Petition is for a direction not to conduct the election on the basis of the final list published on 23-11-1995 and for a direction to delete those persons who are not qualified to be members of the Society. The Returning Officer has filed a statement. He has stated that the preliminary voters' list was published on 9-11-1995 inviting objections and only three objections were received. Of these two objections related to the allegation against the admission of ineligible members on 18-10-1995. The same was rejected on the ground that it will not come within the scope of Returning Officer's consideration. The 3rd objection was considered and allowed at the request of the petitioner and the final list was published on 24-11-1995. Of these two objections related to the allegation against the admission of ineligible members on 18-10-1995. The same was rejected on the ground that it will not come within the scope of Returning Officer's consideration. The 3rd objection was considered and allowed at the request of the petitioner and the final list was published on 24-11-1995. The Returning Officer has also stated that as per the interim directions of this Court he has allowed voting by keeping separate ballot boxes for the old members and for new members admitted on 18-10-1995. Since the term of office of the Directors will-expire on 12-1-1996, the results have to be declared to enable the Board to assume office. 16. On a consideration of the case I find that the objection related to the admission of members which may not strictly come within the scope of consideration of the Returning Officer. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to question the qualification or disqualification of the members admitted before appropriate forum, I do not find any merits in the contentions of the petitioner against the conduct of election based on the final list published on 24-11-1995. Accordingly the Original Petition is dismissed and the 2nd respondent is directed to declare the results to enable the Directors to assume officer on 12-1-1996. 17. O.P. Nos. 19835 and 20281/1995: In O.P. No. 19835/95 the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P3 and P4 communications issued by the Returning Officer stating that there is no valid objection to the preliminary voters' list. According to the petitioner many of the members who are not eligible were admitted and, therefore, they ought not to have been found as eligible members to vote at the election. In O.P. No. 20281/95 the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 communication. The prayers are similar in both the O. Ps. As I found earlier the scope and power of the Returning Officer are restricted to the consideration of the eligibility to vote and not the qualification of the candidates to be members of the Society. In that view of the matter I do not find any merits in the contention of the petitioners Accordingly the Original Petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to question the qualification of members admitted before an appropriate forum. In that view of the matter I do not find any merits in the contention of the petitioners Accordingly the Original Petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to question the qualification of members admitted before an appropriate forum. Petition dismissed.