Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The challenge is against Ext. P1, and order of the Registrar nominating three members as the nominees of the Government to the Board of Directors of a District Co-operative Bank, Wayanad which is a Central Society. The management of the society vests in a Director Board consisting of not more than 7 members. The Government nominees are appointed in terms of Section 31(1) which provides that the Government or any other specified authority will have " the right to nominate not more than 3 persons or one third of the total number of members of the committee of such apex or central society whichever is less". Therefore; at the maximum , nomination can be to 1/3 of the members which is less than 3 . By Ext. P1 government nominates 3 persons. Therefore, it is violative of Section 31(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. He relies upon the clause in the bylaw which reads as follows; "Clause 24 of the byelaw: Subject to such resolution as the General body may from time to time pass executive management of the affairs of the bank shall vest in the board of directors consisting not more than 7 members. The Board shall remain in office for a period of 5 years." It is an admitted fact by the petitioner that at present there are 7 elected members. 2. Section 31 provides for nomination. The byelaw cannot take away that power vested with the Government to nominate members to the committee of a central society. So, there shall be nominated members and they shall be in addition to the said seven elected members. It shall be limited to 1/3rd. If this 1/3 is calculated on the said seven it shall be less than 3. 3. It is contended by respondents that hitherto, there were 3 nominated members. That pattern is still followed in Ext. P1. 4. The petitioner cannot dispute the nomination of 1/3 of the total members. Even that 1/3 is taken on the 7 elected members, it shall be more than 2 and less than three. It is humanly impossible to nominate persons to that extent. So, there shall be three nominated members. The respondents rely on the decision in Alexander v. Director of Panchayats and others (1971 KLT 535) to substantiate this position. Even that 1/3 is taken on the 7 elected members, it shall be more than 2 and less than three. It is humanly impossible to nominate persons to that extent. So, there shall be three nominated members. The respondents rely on the decision in Alexander v. Director of Panchayats and others (1971 KLT 535) to substantiate this position. It is further contended that when nomination of 3 members is permissible and 1/3rd of the 7 members is more than two, there is nothing illegal in nominating three persons as done in Ext. P1. 5. But, I view the problem in yet another different angle. Section 31(1) provides that Government will have " a right to nominate not more than three persons or one third of the total number of members of the committee". There must have some relevance for the word "total" when the legislature used the word. The legislature did not use the word 1/3rd of the elected members of the committee'. But the legislature used the words '1/3rd of the total number of the members of the committee'. There is significant difference. Total means the aggregate of more than two sums. In the situation, the aggregate of elected and nominated members when the number of members nominated as per Ext. P1 is added to the elected members, the total number comes to 10 and when 1/3rd of that total number is taken, the members nominated do not exceed 1/3 or 3 members as provided in Section 31(1). When we import its true meaning to the word total appearing in Section 31(1), there is nothing illegal in Ext. P1. In such circumstances, Ext. P1 nomination is perfectly justified. Added to this is the decision of this court in Alexander's case (cited supra) considering what is meant by 3/5th of the 9 members. This court held that "Three-fifth of nine is five and two fifth and the only way there can be five and two fifth human beings is by having six". Therefore, 1/3rd of 7 is 2.33 and the only way of having 2.33 human beings is to nominate 3 persons and on that reason also Ext. P1 is justified. Original petition fails, dismissed.