JUDGMENT : This is an appeal filed by the subsequent purchasers of flats of a Housing Co-operative Society, seeking membership under the bye-laws of the Society framed under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short ‘Act’) and the Rules of 1960 (for short ‘Rules’) framed thereunder. 2. Briefly the facts of this case are that in May, 2006 the appellants filed their respective applications seeking membership of the Society, which were rejected/returned on the ground that they had not deposited the lump sum contribution amount of Rs.15,000/- which was, by a resolution of the Society, required to be paid by them for becoming a member. This lump sum contribution of Rs.15,000/- which was being charged by the Society was besides the application fee of Rs.10/-; share fee @ Rs.10/- per share of Rs.500/-; and share value @ Rs.100/- per share for 50 shares i.e., Rs.5,000/-, totaling to Rs.5,510/-. Meaning thereby the appellants were required to deposit Rs.5,510/- + Rs.15,000/- i.e. Rs.20,510/- for becoming a member. The appellants are not aggrieved by the respondent-Society charging the application fee, share fee and the share value totaling to Rs.5,510/-. Their grievance is with regard to the Society charging lump sum contribution of Rs.15,000/- for which, according to the appellants, the Society has no authorization under the law. On their applications have been rejected/returned on 18.05.2006 by the respondent-Society, the appellants challenged the same by filing an appeal before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, which appeal was allowed on 14.08.2009 by a detailed reasoned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-Society filed Writ Petition Nos.30936-30938/2009 C/w W.P.Nos.30934-30935/2009, which have been allowed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 18.08.2011. Challenging the said judgment, these appeals have been filed by the appellants seeking membership of the Society. 3. We have heard Sri Laxmikantha K.B. appearing on behalf of Sri Hariskrishna S. Holla, learned counsel for the appellants, as well as Ms.Shobha Bhavikatti, learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1, and also learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State and perused the record. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard and are being disposed of at this stage. 4. The facts as stated above are not disputed by the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these appeals have been heard and are being disposed of at this stage. 4. The facts as stated above are not disputed by the parties. The only question for our consideration is as to whether the respondent-Society is lawfully entitled to charge lump sum contribution in the light of the provisions of the Act and Rules as well as the Bye-laws of the Society. Section 16 of the Act deals with persons who may become members; Section 26 of the Act provides that the final authority of a Co-operative Society which would vest in the general body of the members; Rule 5(1) of the Rules provides for the Subject matter of the Bye-laws. The relevant Clause(g) of Sub-rule(1) of Rule 5 reads as under: “5. Subject-matter of bye-laws:-(1) The bye-laws of a Co-operative Society shall provide for the following matters, namely (a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx (e) xxxxx (f) xxxxx (g) the entrance and other fees to be collected from members. 5. From the above, it is clear, that the bye-laws of the Society is to provide for entrance and other fees to be collected from the members. The relevant byelaw No.6(1) of the bye-laws of the respondent-Society, as quoted in the order of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, reads as under: “A person who acquires an apartment by purchase or transfer from the members by way of gift or settlement, excluding the legal representatives who are entitled to succeed to the apartment owner, shall be admitted as a member subject to payment of share capital, share fee, admission fee and entrance fee as may be prescribed by the Annual/Special General Meeting from time to time” 6. By amendment brought in the bye-laws, Clause 6(b)(1) was added, which reads as follows: “Clause 6(b)(1) - A person who acquires an Apartment by sale or transfer (legal heir) shall be admitted as a members, subject to payment of share capital, share fee and Admission fee etc., as may be prescribed”. 7. A combined reading of Rule 5(1)(g) and bye-law No.6(1) and amended bye-law Clause 6(b)(1) would make it clear that what can be charged from a member is entrance and other fees, which may be share fee, admission fee and entrance fee. 7. A combined reading of Rule 5(1)(g) and bye-law No.6(1) and amended bye-law Clause 6(b)(1) would make it clear that what can be charged from a member is entrance and other fees, which may be share fee, admission fee and entrance fee. There is no provision for charging of any kind of contribution (other than fee) from a person seeking membership. 8. What is to be considered now by this Court is as to whether lump sum contribution being charged by the Society for becoming a member could be termed as some sort of fee or not. In our opinion, the answer to this would be a clear ‘No’. A lump sum contribution can in no case be termed as a fee, either for admission or entry. The issue of the appellants being charged application fee, share fee and share value is not in question, as it is the legitimate fee, which the Society can charge from persons seeking membership in terms of the Act, Rules and the Bye-laws. In the absence of there being any provision in the Act, Rules or Bye-laws for deposit of any kind of contribution from a person seeking membership, the same cannot be charged by way of a resolution of general body of the Society. A general body resolution can be only with regard to such matters for which there is provision made in the Bye-laws of the Society, as well as Act and the Rules. It is only certain kinds of fees, which is permissible in law and can be charged from person seeking membership, and not any kind of contribution, as has been required by the Society to be paid in the present case. Though there is no provision for charging of contribution, yet by a resolution of the general body of the Society, it was provided on 24.07.2005 that ‘to admit purchasers of Apartment in Various units of the Society from it erstwhile Members on payment of Rs.15,000/- per Apartment as Lump sum contribution and Rs.5,000/- as value of shares in the Society would be charged’. Requiring a person to pay any lump sum contribution to become a member would amount to charging a premium on the sale of flats, for which there is no authorization under the Act, Rules or Bye-laws, and hence would not be in accordance with law. 9. Requiring a person to pay any lump sum contribution to become a member would amount to charging a premium on the sale of flats, for which there is no authorization under the Act, Rules or Bye-laws, and hence would not be in accordance with law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Society has vehemently argued that the bye-laws of the Society provides for payment of share capital, share fee, admission fee and entrance fee ‘as may be prescribed’. Much emphasis has been laid on the term ‘as may be prescribed’ and it is submitted that whatever is prescribed by the resolution of the general body of the Society, would be payable. 10. What we notice is that what would be payable is various kinds of fees which the Society can charge and which ‘may be prescribed’ by the resolution of the general body. Nothing more than what is provided in the Bye-laws or the Rules. Hence it is the fee alone which ‘may be prescribed’ by a resolution of the general body of the Society and not any other kind of contribution. 11. The learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the general body was empowered to prescribe any kind of lump sum contribution to be paid, as in our view, the same cannot be termed as fees. It may be true that the general body has the power to prescribe the quantum of fees, but the fees has to be such fees which is provided for under the Bye-laws, and in terms of the Act and the Rules. Since we are of the opinion that the lump sum contribution of Rs.15,000/-, for which the general body has passed a resolution on 24.07.2005, cannot be termed as a ‘fees’, the rejection/returning of the application of the appellants on the ground of nonpayment of such contribution of Rs.15,000/- cannot be justified in law. 12. We are of the clear view that the Society cannot charge any lump sum contribution for inducting any new member. 12. We are of the clear view that the Society cannot charge any lump sum contribution for inducting any new member. This we say so because a new member would normally have no say in the passing of a resolution, which may be against the bye-laws and if the general body is permitted to pass resolution for payment of lump sum contribution for entering as a member, without there being any authority for charging such amount under the Act and the Rules, the persons purchasing flats from existing owners would be saddled with the additional amount of contribution, which the Society may start charging as premium, which a nonprofit making housing society cannot be allowed to charge. As such, we are of the view that the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the appeals filed by the appellants is justified in law and the order passed by the writ Court is liable to be set aside. 13. Accordingly, we allow the appeals and set aside the order dated 18.08.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.30936-30938/2009 C/w W.P.Nos.30934-935/2009 and uphold the order dated 14.08.2009 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. No order as to costs.