JUDGMENT B.N. Patnaik, J. 1. Petitioners in O.P. No. 15697/96 have preferred this appeal against the Judgment dated 11th October, 1996 passed by a learned Single Judge. By the impugned Judgment, the prayer of the petitioner to quash Ext. P1 notice issued by the first respondent directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,43,643/- from the petitioners which they had received as sitting fee in the capacity of the Directors of the Board, was rejected. 2. The petitioners/appellants were the elected members of the Board of Directors of the Mattancherry Sarvajanik Cooperative Bank Ltd. It is contended that the sitting fee was allowed to be paid by the Cooperative Bank to the members when they attended the board meetings, and accordingly the bank paid sitting fee to all the petitioners/appellants for the period from 27th October 1986 to 31st December 1994. The first respondent herein-the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies-found that the sitting fee has been paid in the absence of any bye law of the Bank to that effect, and directed the petitioners/appellants to refund the same on the ground that the same was paid illegally. This direction, it is contended, is not warranted. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition in limine by holding that the petitioners were not entitled to get any sitting fee. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that prior to October 1986, members were entitled to get sitting fee according to the then existing bye laws. There is an omission in the later bye laws with regard to the payment of sitting fee to the members. Nevertheless the bank paid the sitting fee as usual and no audit objection was made against it. Sub-r.(2) and (5) of R.48 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 permit the bank to pay such fee to its members. Since there is no prohibition against such payment in the bye laws, there was no illegality in receiving the same. This practice is being followed for a long time since its inception in 1953. The first respondent has no power to pass orders for recovery of the sitting fee. 4. It may be true that prior to October, 1986 the bye laws of the bank contained a provision enabling the members of the Board to draw the sitting fee. But later the bank adopted the model bye laws. In the model bye laws, such a provision was omitted. 4. It may be true that prior to October, 1986 the bye laws of the bank contained a provision enabling the members of the Board to draw the sitting fee. But later the bank adopted the model bye laws. In the model bye laws, such a provision was omitted. R.6 of the Cooperative Societies Rules says that it shall be competent to the Registrar to frame bye laws for each class or classes of societies and to suggest modifications thereto from time to time. Such model bye laws shall be adopted by the Society with such modifications, if any, as may be suggested by the Society and agreed to by the Registrar. It appears that a Cooperative society or bank was not precluded from inserting any other relevant bye law by way of modification of the model bye laws. Such a bye law would of course require the approval of the Registrar. It was open to the bank to frame such a bye law and obtain the approval of the Registrar. The omission of such a bye law therefore suggests that the sitting fee which was being paid prior to October, 1986 was sought: to be discontinued. In the absence of any provision in the set of later bye laws which superseded the earlier bye laws, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioners were not entitled to draw the sitting fee after October, 1986. 5. Sub-rules (2) and (5) of R.48 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 lay down as follows: "(2) Members of the committee may be paid by the Society travelling allowance to and from their usual place of residence as well as daily allowance or sitting fee for attending the meetings of the committee. * * * * * (5) The Registrar shall fix the maximum rates of travelling allowances and daily allowance or sitting fee for any society or c lass of societies and each society may fix the rate in its own bye laws with reference to its financial resources." These provisions have to be read with R.180 of the said Cooperative Societies Rules. R.180 states that no society shall do any act which is not expressly provided for by the bye laws of such society without the previous express sanction of the Registrar for the same. It is true that sub-rule (2) contemplates that sitting fee may be paid to the members. R.180 states that no society shall do any act which is not expressly provided for by the bye laws of such society without the previous express sanction of the Registrar for the same. It is true that sub-rule (2) contemplates that sitting fee may be paid to the members. But, in our opinion, that is only an enabling provision and not a mandatory one. Sub-rule (5) makes it further clear that a society may fix the rate of sitting fee in its own bye laws with reference to its financial capacity. The society may or may not decide to fix the rate of sitting fee. But, this rate under no circumstance shall exceed the rate prescribed by the Registrar. Sub-rules (2) and (5) of R.48 therefore postulate that there should be a bye law to enable the members of the society to draw the sitting fee at the rate not exceeding the maximum rate prescribed by the Registrar. Rule 180 forbids any such act of the society, namely payment of sitting fee, in the absence of any express provision in the bye law or in the absence of express sanction by the Registrar. In this case, there is neither any express provision in the bye laws of the bank nor is there any express sanction by the Registrar empowering the bank to pay the sitting fee to its members after the adoption of model bye laws. Any payment thereafter is therefore illegal. It is, however, left to the discretion of the society to frame a bye law and obtain the approval of the Registrar to enable the members to draw sitting fee, if there is none. 6. The Registrar of the Cooperative Society or any other authority empowered by the Government has a duty to regulate the functioning of the cooperative societies and banks, in accordance with the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act and Rules. Since in this case the bank has committed an illegality in paying the sitting fee, the first respondent had rightly directed for refund of the same in pursuance of the provisions of the Act and Rules. Long practice cannot legitimise or legalise any illegality. For the reasons stated above, we find that the appeal is devoid of any merit. It is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.