Judgment : 1. What is the quorum for a meeting of the committee, of a co-operative society, in which Government have nominees? 2. The petitioner is the President of a Society to which section 31 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, the “Act”, applies. The respondent, Registrar, issued Ext.P8 on the ground of lack of quorum for the meeting of the committee of that society, held on 8-8-2007. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Therelevant facts lie within a narrow compass. Clause 11.1 of Ext.P1 Bye-laws of the society provides that the committee shall consist of no more than 19 members, in terms of the classification in that provision. The Government has nominated three persons to be members of the committee in terms of section 31 of the Act. The meeting in issue was attended only by 11 members of the committee. The impugned Ext.P8 is issued taking the view that the total number of members of the committee is 22 and therefore, the quorum for a meeting of the committee shall be 12 in terms of section 28(5) of the Act. 4. The writ petitioner pleads that the quorum has to be determined without revoking the members nominated in terms of section 31 of the Act and with reference, only to the members of the committee as elected in terms of Section 28(1). In support of this contention, Advocate Sri. Poonthottam argued that sub-section (5) of Section 28 applies only on the basis of sub-section (1) of that section and that Section 31 does not contain any mandate to include the nominated members to determine the quorum for a meeting. It is pointed out that even Rule 37 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short, the “Rules”, does not enjoin the inclusion of the nominated members to determine the quorum. 5. Thelearned Special Government pleader for Co-operation, Smt. Aneetha, argued that the quorum has to be determined counting also, the nominees of the Government since by such nomination, they become members of the committee and the only restriction on them is that in terms of Section 31(3), regarding participation in the discussion of, or voting on, any no-confidence motion. She referred to N. Sudarsanan v. State of Kerala [1996 (2) KLT 942] in support, to argue that no further embargo could be placed. 6. She referred to N. Sudarsanan v. State of Kerala [1996 (2) KLT 942] in support, to argue that no further embargo could be placed. 6. Theterm “Committee” is defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act, to mean the governing body of a cooperative society, by whatever name called, to which the management of the affairs of the society is entrusted. Section 28(1) obliges the general body of a society to constitute a committee in accordance with the bye-laws and entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee. Section 31(1) provides a right with the Government to nominate persons to be members of the committee. As noticed in N. Sundarasan (Supra), the only restriction on the nominated member is abstinence from participation in the discussion of any no-confidence motion and voting thereon. Subject to such restriction, the Government nominees are members of the committee, in the fullest sense. Their nomination is envisaged in section 31 to protect the interest of the Government, as is apparent from a plain reading of Section 31(1) of the Act. Their participation is legislatively sanctioned to the fullest extent, except for the abstinence ordered in sub-section (3) of section 31. The result of nomination in terms of Section 31(1) is that the nominated person becomes a member of the committee. There can be no further classification between the nominated members and the elected members unless the Legislature has prescribed it. This is also the reason for Rule 37(2) of the Rules. 7. Section 28(5) of the Act provides that the quorum for a meeting of a committee shall be such number of members, just above fifty per cent of the total number of members of that committee. The quorum rule provided by section 28(5) applies for a meeting. The time and place for determining the quorum for a meeting is the meeting itself. The prescription is that the quorum shall be such number of members, just above fifty per cent of the total number of members of that committee, thereby meaning the committee of which a meeting is being held. As on the date of meeting, the nominees of the Government are members of the committee in terms of Section 31(1). The prescription is that the quorum shall be such number of members, just above fifty per cent of the total number of members of that committee, thereby meaning the committee of which a meeting is being held. As on the date of meeting, the nominees of the Government are members of the committee in terms of Section 31(1). The quorum for a meeting has to be above fifty per cent of the total number of members of that committee which is to meet, meaning thereby, the committee in office as on that day. This, indisputably, is the committee comprising of those in the committee in terms of section 28(1) and those in the committee by virtue of their nomination in terms of section 31(1) of the Act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the quorum for a meeting of a committee of a society to which section 31(1) of the Act applies shall be such number of persons, just above fifty per cent of the total number of members of the committee consisting of the elected members in terms of section 28(1) and the nominated members in terms of Section 31 (1) of the Act. This is how the quorum rule contained in Section 28(5) would apply to a meeting of a committee of an apex or a central society under the Act. 9. The three Government nominees of the committee of the society in hand were members of the committee as on the date of the meeting in question. There is no dispute on that. Applying the law as enunciated above, the impugned order is not vitiated by any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.