Judgment :- S. Siri Jagan, J. The question involved in this Writ Appeal is as to whether a Society can construct its head office beyond the area of operation of the Society. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows. 2. The Writ Petition was filed by the 1st respondent-Bank which is a Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Its area of operation was Thiruvarnpady, Kodiyathur, Karassery and Mukkom Panchayat. Later on, on the formation of Thiruvampady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kodiyathur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., and Karassery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., the area of the operation of the 1st respondent-Bank was confined to Mukkom Panchayat alone. The area of operation of the 1st respondent -Bank and the appellant-Bank was separated by a river called Iruvanjipuzha. The 1st respondent-Bank's area of operation is north of the river and appellant's area of operation is on the south of the river. Head Office of the appellant-Bank is in Karassery, one kilometre away from Mukkam town. The appellant-Bank wanted to shift their head office within the Mukkam Panchayat very near to the head office of the 1st respondent-Bank. The 1st respondent-Bank objected to the same. However, the Joint Registrar accorded sanction to the appellant-Bank to purchase a plot of land having an extent of 18.98 cents in Thazhakkode amsom within the area of operation of 1st respondent-Bank and approval was also granted for incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs. 56,19,284/- for purchasing the same. This approval was granted by Ext. P8 order. Later on, by Ext. P10 order, the Joint Registrar permitted the appellant to utilise general funds for construction of the head office on the said land. Therefore, the 1st respondent challenged Exts. P8 and P10 orders of the Joint Registrar on the ground that the establishment of the head office of the appellant-Bank within the area of operation of the 1st respondent would amount to violation of S.7(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act which proscribes overlapping of areas of operation. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, found that S.7(1)(c) provides that for granting registration, the Registrar has to be satisfied that the area of operation of the proposed society and the area of operation of another society of similar type do not overlap and therefore although in so far as Ext. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, found that S.7(1)(c) provides that for granting registration, the Registrar has to be satisfied that the area of operation of the proposed society and the area of operation of another society of similar type do not overlap and therefore although in so far as Ext. P8 only amounts to issue sanction to the 2nd respondent to buy land that could not be found fault with, purchase of land on the basis of Ext. P8 cannot be followed up with the establishment of the head office of the appellant-Bank in the land in relation to which Ext. P8 order has been issued. The same is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. 3. We have heard arguments of both sides. 4. We are of opinion that overlapping of area of operation and establishment of an office in the area of operation of another Bank are two distinct and separate matters. Prohibition of overlapping under S.7(1)(c) only extends to prohibition of doing business of the Bank to the detriment of the other Bank. Simply because the appellant-Bank establishes a head office in a land within the area of operation of the 1st respondent - Bank, the same cannot be regarded as overlapping of areas of operation, unless the 1st respondent has got a case that by establishing the head office there, the appellant-Bank is also canvassing the business from the members of the locality within the area of operation of the 1st respondent-Bank. An example would be where the Government of Kerala opens an office in New Delhi for its administrative purposes and passes orders relating to Kerala State in that office, which would not amount to exercising jurisdiction over the State of Delhi. Another example would be an existing example of the secretariat of the States of Punjab and Haryana. Both States have their secretariat at the same place. That does not mean that one State is exercising jurisdiction over the area of the other State. In the above circumstances, we are not satisfied that the construction of a head office by the appellant-Bank in a land within the area of operation of the 1st respondent-Bank would amount to violation of S.7(1)(c) of the: Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The area of operation is different from establishment of an administrative office. The word "operation" would necessarily relate to the business of the Bank/Society. The area of operation is different from establishment of an administrative office. The word "operation" would necessarily relate to the business of the Bank/Society. That means one Society/Bank should not have its business in respect of the area of operation of another Society/Bank. Simply because one Society establishes a head office within the area of another Society, that would not automatically mean that there is overlapping of areas of operation of the two Banks, unless, of course the first Bank canvasses business from the area of operation of the other Bank. That being so, we do not find anything wrong with either Exts. P8 or P10 or establishment of a head office by the appellant in the land purchased by the appellant as per Exts. P8 and P10 approval by the Joint Registrar. Therefore, we are of opinion that the declaration given by the learned Single Judge to the effect that Ext. P8 cannot be followed up with the establishment of the head office of the appellant-Bank in the land in relation to which Ext. P8 has been issued, is unsustainable. Therefore, we are satisfied that the appellant-Bank cannot be prevented from establishing its head office within the land in question despite the fact that it is within the area of operation of the 1st respondent-Bank. But, it is made clear that by establishing such head office, the appellant- Bank shall not canvass any business from the area of operation of the 1st respondent-Bank and to that extent prohibition under S.7(1)(c) would certainly apply. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.