Judgment :- J.B. Koshy, J. In both these petitions, petitioners are members of the 2nd respondent Pattanakad Service Co-operative Bank. It is stated that they were members of the Bank for more than two decades and they were voting in the elections also. They are directors of the present Committee also. Their names are published in the voters list by the Returning Officer. But their nominations were rejected on the ground that there was dual membership. There is no provision in the bye-laws prohibiting dual membership. In the statement filed by the Returning Officer, it is submitted that under R.27 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules there is prohibition of membership in two credit or housing societies. However, the remedy for being member of the two societies are also provided under R.27(2) of the Rules which is as follows: - "Where a person has become a member of any society referred to in sub-r.(1) in contravention of the provisions of that sub-rule, such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar." Therefore, on the basis of R.27 action can be taken to oust them as members of the second society. But in the case of petitioners, they are members of the Pattanakkad Service Co-operative Bank earlier and the membership alleged are subsequently taken in the second society. For example, in O.P. No. 11683/97 1st petitioner became a member on 2.11.1971. He was elected to the Board of Directors of the society in the election held on 8.7.1996. In O.P. No. 11686/97 petitioner became a member of Cherthala Taluk Advocates Co-operative Society in the year 1994. Thereafter, he resigned from the membership of that society, perhaps, in view of R.27(2) of the Rules. But, his nomination is rejected because he is a member of the Cherthala Taluk Advocates Co-operative Society. Maximum that can be done as per the Rules is to expel the petitioner from the second society. He has already resigned. In both these cases, petitioners were members first in the Pattanakkad Service Co-operative Bank. Therefore, even if action is taken under R.27, their membership will not be affected in the second respondent society but' only in the society they subsequently became members. 2. Disqualification of membership of committee is mentioned in R.44(1) which gives specific instances where persons can be disqualified from contesting the election to the society. Therefore, even if action is taken under R.27, their membership will not be affected in the second respondent society but' only in the society they subsequently became members. 2. Disqualification of membership of committee is mentioned in R.44(1) which gives specific instances where persons can be disqualified from contesting the election to the society. Dual membership is not a ground for expelling from contesting in the election or becoming a member of the committee. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that R.44(1)0) provides that if a person is disqualified under any other provisions, such person can be disqualified for becoming a member of the Committee. But there is no such provision in the bye-laws also. Therefore, disqualification under R.44(1)0) is also not applicable. Petitioners' names were mentioned in the draft voters list. Petitioners' nominations were rejected because of the alleged dual membership on the allegation that they joined subsequently in some other society. It will not make them disqualified on contesting' the election under R.44. Therefore, action of the 1st respondent in rejecting their nominations is illegal and I direct the 1st respondent to accept the nomination of the petitioners and allow the petitioners to contest the elections. The Original Petitions are allowed.