JUDGMENT : Chitambaresh, J. 1. “The imposition of exemplary costs of Rs.25,000/- in the instant case is an in terrorem verdict” wails the appellant in a case arising under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ['the Act' for short]. 2. The appellant is more aggrieved by the arbitrary imposition of exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid over to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority while dismissing the writ petition. The costs was imposed primarily for the reason that the Co-operative Bank was represented by its President and not its Secretary and that too in the absence of any resolution. The President averred that the Secretary had some physical disability to move about and consequently he was authorised to file the writ petition on behalf of the Bank. One another member who got impleaded in the writ petition pointed out that there was no written resolution of the Managing Committee in that regard. The President thereupon sought permission to withdraw the case to enable a properly framed writ petition to be filed by the Secretary representing the Bank. The learned single Judge has not only declined permission but also dismissed the writ petition with exemplary costs as aforesaid leading to the filing of the present writ appeal. 3. We heard Mr. Sabari C.P., Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mrs. K.R. Deepa, Senior Government Pleader and also Mr. P.C. Sasidharan, Advocate as amicus curiae well known for his outspoken nature. 4. It is true that a co-operative bank or a society has normally to be represented by its Secretary as stated in its bye-laws though any other member could be authorised by a resolution. But the President who is duly elected by the members of the Managing Committee of the Bank stands on a better pedestal than any other member without a resolution. The defect noted -absence of a resolution empowering the President -can be cured even later by taking a decision and producing it in the writ petition during hearing. After all nobody has a case that the President has been acting against the interest of the Bank to advance his personal interest which of course is condemnable to the extreme. 5. The defect noted -absence of a resolution empowering the President -can be cured even later by taking a decision and producing it in the writ petition during hearing. After all nobody has a case that the President has been acting against the interest of the Bank to advance his personal interest which of course is condemnable to the extreme. 5. We take note of the fact that the President of the Bank was fair enough to seek permission to withdraw the case to enable a fresh writ petition to be filed without the defects that were pointed out. No Court shall be prestige conscious as to disallow permission to withdraw a writ petition unless the hearing has advanced to a considerable stage consuming time. The learned single Judge not only declined permission to withdraw but has also dismissed the writ petition with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- as afore-stated. We cannot by any stretch of imagination state that the President of the Bank has indulged in a speculative and vexatious litigation and adventurism in the prayers sought. The communication of the Electoral Officer refusing to accept the list of members eligible to vote supplied by the Managing Committee as belated was challenged. 6. The anxiety of the President of the Bank was on account of the fact that an Administrator would take up the reins of control if the election is not conducted as scheduled in the notification published. The President in his personal capacity could have as well maintained the writ petition when he is the head of the 'committee' defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. There are situations where the President has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition such as when the Managing Committee is sought to be superseded. Surcharge proceedings initiated against the members of the Managing Committee is yet another contingency when the President of the Bank can step in as a suitor to invalidate it. 7. It has been held that costs should not be imposed to create a corpus for the State Legal Services Authority in Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta and another [ (2009) 2 SCC 656 ]. The President of the Bank cannot be said to be guilty of misrepresentation, fraud or suppression of facts on account of which there was an unmerited gain in his favour. The President of the Bank cannot be said to be guilty of misrepresentation, fraud or suppression of facts on account of which there was an unmerited gain in his favour. The President of the Bank has also not produced any forged and fabricated document and it can at best be said that the writ petition was not properly framed. It is only normal for the lawyers to stumble, falter and trip in their professional journey and they learn by their mistakes when good cases are lost in court. Diligence helps the lawyers to achieve near perfection by experience and accolade to their seniors in profession who lend a helping hand in the infancy of their career. We cannot altogether rule out the slip if any in the preparation of the writ petition and the imposition of exemplary costs Rs.25,000/- in the case on hand seems to be unnecessary. 8. It transpires that the election could not be held as per the calender published resulting in the appointment of an Administrator for the Bank and the status quo cannot be allowed to continue for long. The competent among the respondents shall therefore take immediate steps for the conduct of election to the Managing Committee of the Bank to be finalised within three months. The impugned judgment to the extent it dismisses the writ petition with compensatory costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid over to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs.