Judgment :- Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Petitioner and respondents 7 to 11 were elected to the committee of the 5th respondent cooperative society, The first meeting of the newly elected committee was scheduled to the held at 11 am on 111.2008. The petitioners were, admittedly, not present at that appointed time. The Joint Registrar, acting on the report made by the Assistant Registrar dated 111.2008, issued Ext.P9 on that day, appointing a part-time administrator in exercise of authority under Section 33(1)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, the ‘Act’ for short. This is under challenge. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that as a result of the break down of the vehicle, in which they were traveling, they could reach the office of the 5th respondent only by 11.20 am on 111.2008 and therefore, it is not a case where they have failed to entire on office. They contend that the impugned action is motivated in as much as the 6th respondent, secretary of the 5th respondent society, had acted illegally in winding up the meeting without waiting to enable the petitioners to join the meeting, affording sufficient time. 3. The contesting respondents take the stand that the petitioners had never come to the office of the 5th respondent on 111.2008 and that they came over only in the morning on 111.2008 and that the pleas made by the petitioners are without any legal or factual basis. 4. In contrast to the contentions on behalf of the respondents, the petitioners state that on 111.2008 itself, they had made Ext.P.7 representation to the Joint Registrar, in which, they had categorically made their first statement, at the earliest point of time, that they had reached the office of the 5th respondent at 11.20 am and that the delay was attributable only to the break down of the jeep in which they were traveling. 5. Section 29(1) (b) of the Act provides that a general body shall be held for the purpose of election, if any, in the prescribed manner, of the members of the committee other than nominated members. 5. Section 29(1) (b) of the Act provides that a general body shall be held for the purpose of election, if any, in the prescribed manner, of the members of the committee other than nominated members. Section 28(1) provides that the general body of a society shall constitute a committee and entrust the management of the affairs of the society to such committee, Rule 35A(6)(p) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 hereinafter, the ‘Rules’ for short provides that following the election, the result of the election shall be recorded in the minute book of the society and shall be attested by the Returning Officer and shall also be notified immediately on the notice board of the head office of the society. It further provides that the members so elected shall be deemed to have been elected by the general body of the society for the purpose of clause (b) of section 29. The effect of Sections 28 (1) and 29(b) of the Act read with Rule 35A (6) (p) of the Rules is that the process of election and the status of the elected persons as members of the committee is an event that is automatic on the action of the Returning Officer in terms of the Statutory requirement of Rule 35A (6) (p). Therefore, when the Returning Officer records the result of the election in the minute’s book of the society and attests the same and also notifies such result on the notice board of the society, the elected members become the members of the committee by the operation of those statutory provisions. 1. 6. The next event provided by the statute is that when a committee is so constituted under Section 28, the Secretary or the Chief Executive or any other officer exercising such function, is duty bound under Rule 38(1) of the Rules to convene the meeting of the committee to elect its president and officer bearers. The committee so convened, apart from electing its president and other officer bearers, is also to authorize, by resolution, the officers concerned, to take charge from the outgoing office bearers. The incidents that take place in the first meeting of the committee are thus the election of the president and officer bearers and the authorization of its office bearers to take charge from the outgoing office bearers. 2. 7. The incidents that take place in the first meeting of the committee are thus the election of the president and officer bearers and the authorization of its office bearers to take charge from the outgoing office bearers. 2. 7. The committee comes into being by the self-working system of Sections 28 and 33 (1) (b) of the Act and Rule 35A (6) (p) of the Rules. That committee takes over charge form the outgoing office bearers. 3. 8. Section 33(1) (b) of the Act provides that where the Registrar is satisfied that a new committee is prevented form entering upon office or a new committee fails to enter upon office on the date on which the term of office of the existing committee expires, the Registrar may, either suo mottu or on the application of any member of the society, after intimating the Circle Co-operative Union, appoint a new committee consisting of not more than three members of the society or not more than three administrates in terms of sub clause (ii) under Section 33(1)(b). The first proviso to Section 33(1) provides that before making such order, the Registrar shall publish a notice on the notice board of the head office of the society inviting objections to the making of the order within a period specified in the notice and consider such objections. The second proviso under that Section provides that it shall not be necessary to so publish a notice where the Registrar is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to do so. Therefore, except incases where the Registrar is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to publish a notice on the notice board of the head office of the society inviting objections to the making of the order under Section 33(1) the Registrar is obliged to issue such pre-decisional notice and to consider objections if raised. .9. Adverting to the impugned Ex.P9 with the aforesaid position in law in mind, it can be seen that the said decision was generated on a report tendered by the Assistant Registrar, on 111.2008, That decisions issued on the same day on which the Assistant Registrar had made the report; i.e., on the same day on which the committee was schedule to have its first meeting. Ext.P9 does not show that the Registrar was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to follow the rule of notice enjoined in the first proviso to Section 33(1). 4. 10. The power to appoint an administrator or a committee in terms Section 33(1) (b) would arise only when the new committee is prevented from entering upon office or the new committee fails to enter upon office. The result of the election is not obliterated thereby. A committee can be said to have “failed” to enter upon office only is situations where it would be a “failure’ and not merely non-entering of office for reasons which could be taken cognizance of as reasonable cause for not entering the office. The concept of being “prevented” and of “failure “are essentially matters and situations where there could be no excuse for not entering upon office. It is in that context, that the opportunity of pre-decisional hearing enjoined in the first proviso to Section 33(1)(b) would be relevant; in particular to the case in hand. 5. 11. Ext.P8, which is not disputed, shows that Ext.P7 was delivered on the evening of 111.2008 itself. As already noticed, the petitioners have stated in Ext.P7 dated 111.2008 that they could reach the office of the 5th respondent society only at 11.20 am and the reason attributable for that delay was the break down of the vehicle in which they were traveling. There is fair room in Section 33(1)(b) to consider that plea of the petitioners, who have been elected to lead a democratic institution. The question whether there was a “failure’ to enter on office or whether the elected members were “Prevented” from entering office needs to be decided. The word “prevented”, as used in the statutory provisions under consideration, admits only one view; that is, “lawfully prevented”. Otherwise it may be taken that even if the committee is unlawfully prevented from reaching the first meeting, even by unauthorized use of force, Section 33(1) could be invoked. This is not to be. Every prescription of law is founded on legal basis and sustains only that way. Illegality and unlawfulness are never provided for by law. They are envisaged in the making and interpreting of the laws, only to be identified, prevented or annihilated. Even if a view contrary to that is apparently available, that is not to be countenanced but is only to be read down. Illegality and unlawfulness are never provided for by law. They are envisaged in the making and interpreting of the laws, only to be identified, prevented or annihilated. Even if a view contrary to that is apparently available, that is not to be countenanced but is only to be read down. This is how the Rule of Law works to prevail itself. If Section 33(1) does not admit authority for the Register or Joint Registrar, as the case may be, to decide such an issue, that provision would tend to be draconic and an awful sword, when in a nepotic hand. Intrinsic guidance as noticed herein is inbuilt in Section 33(1) of the Act. 6. 12. Thus, in law, the case in hand is one where the Joint Registrar was obliged in terms of the first proviso to Section 33(1) (b) to consider the explanation given by the petitioners in Ext.P7 and take a decision accordingly. Such a situation has been excluded by the issuance of Ext.P9 even without being satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to issue a pre-decisional notice as provided for in the first proviso to Section 33(1)(b). .13. In this context, the learned Counsel for respondents 7 to 11 pointed our that Section 33(1) does not prescribe any statutory power of review and therefore, once Ext. P9 was issued it was impermissible for the Joint Registrar to act on Ext.P7. If that were so, it needs to be noticed that by virtue of the statutory requirement of the first proviso to Section 33(1)(b) and because the Joint Registrar had not concluded that it was not practicable to follow the first proviso; for which he had the authority under the second proviso; the impugned action is totally unsustainable and without jurisdiction. 7. 14. But, the fact of the matter remains that on 111.2008, the term of the previous committee expired and the office is being managed from 111.2008 by the alternate arrangement made in terms of Ext.P9. That fact situation obtained as of now, cannot be disturbed until the issue as to whether the petitioners and the committee had failed to enter upon office is decided appropriately. 8. 15. That fact situation obtained as of now, cannot be disturbed until the issue as to whether the petitioners and the committee had failed to enter upon office is decided appropriately. 8. 15. For the foregoing reasons, it is directed that Ex p.9 will be treated as a notice in terms of first proviso to Section 33(1) (b) of the Act and the Joint Registrar shall hear the petitioners and respondents 7 to 11 on Ext.P7 and take a decision, denovo, in accordance with law and in the light of what is stated herein, on the question as to whether the part-time administrator appointed should continue or whether the committee elected on 11.2008 could assume office in a re-scheduled meeting in terms of Rule 38(1) of the Rules. Let such a decision follow within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.