JUDGMENT : A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J. Ext. P3 issued by the 2nd respondent, by which the 2nd respondent had directed the 3rd respondent to cancel Ext. P2 amendment contained in Clause 37b(v)(ii) in the bye-laws of the petitioner society, is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner is an Employees' Co-operative Society functioning with the area of operation as Meenachil taluk. It consists of more than 23,000 members falling under 4 classes, viz., A, B, C and D. A class members are employees working under various Co-operative Societies in the same taluk. B class members are employees working under Government, Semi-Governmental organizations, Government approved corporations and boards. 2. The petitioner alleges that by the amendment of the bye-law and insertion of Clause 37b(v)(ii), the facilities provided to A class members were also granted to B class members. The petitioner further alleges the amendment was approved by the 3rd respondent as per Ext. P2 in exercise of powers of the Registrar conferred upon the 3rd respondent. 3. On a petition filed by the 1st respondent society before the 2nd respondent aggrieved by the insertion of Clause 37b(v)(ii) in the bye-law of the petitioner society, the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P2 directed the 3rd respondent to cancel the amendment contained in the aforesaid clause. The petitioner challenges the impugned order for the reason that the petitioner society was not afforded an opportunity of being heard for the reason that only an appeal would lie to the Government as provided under Section 83 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act against Ext. P2 amendment. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 4. The 1st respondent society in the detailed counter-affidavit contended that the said society was formed in the year 1973 and was affiliated to the Kerala State Circle Co-operative Union. The employees of the society are aided school teachers working within the area of operation of the society viz., Panchayats of Ramapuram, Kadanad, Melukavu and Marangattuppally, within the Meenachil taluk. According to the 1st respondent, there are two types of membership in the society, viz., A class membership which is given to all the aided school teachers and associate membership for persons other than aided school teachers. The share subscription in respect of A class member is Rs. 100/- and for the Associate members it is Rs. 10/-. 5. It was further contended that Ext. The share subscription in respect of A class member is Rs. 100/- and for the Associate members it is Rs. 10/-. 5. It was further contended that Ext. P3 is only a communication addressed to the Joint Registrar, who is the 3rd respondent, instructing him to take necessary steps for repudiation of the amendment introduced to the bye-law of the petitioner society, viz., Clause 37b(v)(ii). It was pointed out that the functioning of both the societies do overlap side by side with the area of operation and by virtue of the proposed amendment, the petitioner intended to canvas business by weaning away substantial number of members of the 1st respondent bank who would by all means take advantage of the proposed amendment, which does not insist for payment of dividend proportionate to their share in the society. 6. They would further contend that it is the duty of the Registrar to satisfy himself under Section 7 of the Act that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. According to them Section 7 read with Rule 5 of the Rules mandates that bye-laws cannot be registered if it is against the provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, they maintained the stand that the Registrar is perfectly competent to issue Ext. P3. 7. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, they contended as follows: The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The society consists of A, B, C and D class members. A class members are the employees employed in the Co-operative Societies in the are of operation of the petitioner society. B class members consist of permanent employees employed in Government, Semi Government and Government approved Corporation and Boards. As per the bye-law of the petitioner, loans could be granted to A class members. Since the petitioner society is having surplus fund and in order to utilize the above fund positively, the general body of the petitioner society resolved as per Resolution No. 11 dated 26/12/2010 to amend the bye-law of the society by incorporating a new clause as Clause 37b(V)(ii) with a provision to provide loan facilities to B class members of the society. They are not allowed to participate in the election process. They are not allowed to participate in the election process. It was stated that the above proposal for amendment was submitted to the 3rd respondent through proper channel and the 3rd respondent by order dated 09/12/2011 registered the amendment proposal, including the insertion of new provision under Section 12 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It was further stated that thereafter the 1st respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent against the insertion of new clause in the bye-law of the petitioner society. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent directed the Assistant Registrar (General), Meenachil to conduct the enquiry on the complaint. As per the enquiry report, after the amendment of the bye-law, petitioner society had given B class membership to 83 persons. Out of this, 36 members availed loan amounting to Rs. 180.82 lakhs. 45 persons are Government employees, 14 persons are Semi Government employees and 24 persons are employees of schools. It was further stated that in the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 23/01/2013, as mentioned in Ext. P3, directed the 3rd respondent to cancel the said bye-law amendment. Aggrieved by the said direction as per Ext. P3, the petitioner society had filed this writ petition. Subsequently an oral direction was received to the 3rd respondent not to cancel the said bye-law amendment due to the pendency of this writ petition. 8. Arguments have been heard. 9. Ext. P2 amendment introduced to the bye-laws of the society i.e. 37b(v)(ii) is to the effect that B class members of the society who are salaried class of employees belonging to the Government, Semi Government, recognised by the Government, Corporations, Boards etc., would be conferred with the facilities as are applicable to A class members in respect of availing of ordinary loans, consumable advance, vehicle loan, housing loan etc. There is yet another stipulation in that amendment that these members shall not be liable to pay dividend proportionate to their share. It is this amendment that was approved by the Joint Registrar in terms of Section 13 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 10. There is yet another stipulation in that amendment that these members shall not be liable to pay dividend proportionate to their share. It is this amendment that was approved by the Joint Registrar in terms of Section 13 of the Co-operative Societies Act. 10. As provided under Section 7(1)(c) of the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, if the Registrar is satisfied that the area of operation of the proposed Society and the area of operation of another society of similar type do not overlap the Registrar can register the society and its bye-laws within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. The area of operation of the petitioner's society comprises of the entire Meenachil taluk, including the panchayats coming within the area of operation of the 1st respondent society. The functions of both the societies do over lap side by side with the area of operation. 11. The first respondent has a definite case that by virtue of the proposed amendment, the petitioner was intending to canvas business by weaning away substantial number of members of the 1st respondent bank who would, by all means, take the advantage of the proposed amendment, which does not insist for payment of dividend proportionate to their share in the society. The 1st respondent would contend that this is preciously tabooed by Section 7(1)(c) of the Act. That is the reason why the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in his delayed dawned wisdom felt that the approval of the amendment was wrongly granted, and accordingly, took steps for cancellation of the said amendment. According to this respondent, even though approval was granted to the amendment, that does not take away the power of the Registrar to take steps for cancellation of the proposed amendment in the light of the decision of this Court in Ramankutty Purushothaman and Another Vs. Amminikutty and Others, AIR 1997 Ker 306 : (1997) 3 ILR (Ker) 544. In that case, it was held by this Court that it is the duty of the Registrar to satisfy himself under Section 7 of the Act that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. Amminikutty and Others, AIR 1997 Ker 306 : (1997) 3 ILR (Ker) 544. In that case, it was held by this Court that it is the duty of the Registrar to satisfy himself under Section 7 of the Act that the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Section 7 of the Act r/w. Rule 5 of the Rules mandates that bye-laws cannot be registered if it is against the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, the registration of the bye-laws by itself does not validate anything done contrary to the Act or Rules. Now the Registrar has directed the Joint Registrar to reconsider the issue. The definite case of the petitioner is that before issuing such direction, the petitioner was not heard. This grievance can be redressed if an opportunity is provided to the petitioner and to the 1st respondent, to ventilate their grievance before the Joint Registrar when the matter is being reconsidered by the Joint Registrar. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to consider the issue after affording the petitioner and the 1st respondent society an opportunity of being heard. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.