JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. The appellant, a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) is the petitioner in W.P (C)No.26254 of 2013, wherein it had challenged Ext.P11 order passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Ernakulam on 23.09.2013 whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the Rules for short) he rescinded a resolution adopted by the special general body of the appellant society at its meeting held on 25.11.2012. After considering the rival contentions, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The writ petitioner has, aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. The brief facts of the case are as under. 2. The second respondent herein was enrolled as a member of the appellant society on 11.09.2007. Alleging that the second respondent has acted adversely to the interests of the appellant society, two of its members moved Ext.P1 resolution dated 12.10.2012 to expel him from the membership of the society. The President of the appellant society thereupon issued Ext.P2 notice dated 18.10.2012 to the second respondent, enclosing with it a copy of Ext.P1 and called upon him to show cause why he shall not be expelled from the membership of the society, for the reasons stated in Ext.P1. He was also informed that he will be heard in person at 3 PM on 30.10.2012 and that if no reply is received, Ext.P1 resolution will be placed before the special general body, convened for the purpose. The second respondent did not submit a reply to Ext.P2 notice within the time limit stipulated therein or appear for the hearing scheduled to be held on 30.10.2012. The Managing Committee of the appellant society that met on 31.10.2012 therefore decided to expel the second respondent from the membership of the society and also resolved to convene a special general body meeting on 25.11.2012. 3. Shortly thereafter, on 02.11.2012, the President of the appellant society received Ext.P3 representation dated 29.10.2012 submitted by the second respondent in reply to Ext.P2 notice. 3. Shortly thereafter, on 02.11.2012, the President of the appellant society received Ext.P3 representation dated 29.10.2012 submitted by the second respondent in reply to Ext.P2 notice. On coming to know of the fact that a special general body meeting is scheduled to be held on 25.11.2012 to consider the resolution to expel him from the membership of the society, the second respondent submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 15.11.2012 before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Registrar for short). In Ext.P4 representation, he mainly contended that the special general body has been convened in violation of bye-law 16(4) of the bye-laws. He contended that as per bye-law 16(4), a special general body can be convened only on requisition from the Registrar or from one fifth of the total number of members. He also contended that the Managing Committee is adamant to expel him from the membership of the society. The Joint Registrar, thereupon sought the views of the President of the society who in turn submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 23.11.2012, inter alia stating that the second respondent had not submitted a reply to Ext.P2 notice or appeared for the hearing held on 30.10.2012 and thereupon, the Managing Committee that met on 31.10.2012 resolved to have the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012 to consider Ext.P1 resolution moved by two members of the society. He also contended that the special general body was convened in accordance with law. 4. At the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012, 131 members of the society participated, out of whom 130 members voted. 127 among them voted in favour of Ext.P1 resolution to expel the second respondent from the membership of the society. Accordingly, the special general body, by majority, resolved to expel the second respondent from the membership of the society. Thereupon, the President of the society issued Ext.P6 letter dated 03.12.2012 to the second respondent informing him that he is expelled from the membership of the society. The second respondent in turn submitted Ext.P7 appeal memorandum dated 07.01.2013 before the Joint Registrar invoking his jurisdiction under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act. Upon receipt of Ext.P7, the Joint Registrar forwarded a copy thereof to the President of the society. The second respondent in turn submitted Ext.P7 appeal memorandum dated 07.01.2013 before the Joint Registrar invoking his jurisdiction under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act. Upon receipt of Ext.P7, the Joint Registrar forwarded a copy thereof to the President of the society. He, in turn, submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 30.04.2013 and produced along with it, a copy each of the resolution to expel the second respondent from the membership of the society, the minutes of the special general body meeting, the attendance register of the special general body meeting as also the letter sent to the second respondent informing him of his expulsion from the membership of the society. 5. The Joint Registrar considered the rival contentions and rescinded the resolution adopted by the special general body at the meeting held on 25-11-2012, by Ext.P11 order dated 23-09-2013, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 176 of the Rules, (wrongly referred to as Rule 178 in the said order). The Joint Registrar held that the special general body meeting was not validly convened for the reason that 1/5th of the total number of members of the society had not issued a requisition in writing to convene such a meeting. The Joint Registrar also held that in a democratic set up, expressing dissent and questioning the decision taken by the Managing Committee, cannot be held to be an act adverse to the interests of the society. The appellant society, thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.26254 of 2013 in this court challenging Ext.P11 and seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order to quash Exhibit P11; ii. declare that expulsion of a member from a society can be done only as per the procedures contained in Rule 18 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and that the provisions of the Bye-law cannot override the provisions of the Act and Rules; iii. issue any other writ order or direction as this hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6. The appellant society contended that the resolution expelling the second respondent from the membership of the society was validly moved and passed. issue any other writ order or direction as this hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 6. The appellant society contended that the resolution expelling the second respondent from the membership of the society was validly moved and passed. It also contended that the action taken by the Managing Committee to convene the special general body and the resolution adopted by the special general body at the meeting held on 25-11-2012 are in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act and Rule 18 of the Rules. The appellant society further contended that none of the contingencies mentioned in Rule 176 of the Rules are available and therefore Ext.P11 order is one passed without jurisdiction. 7. The first respondent resisted the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit dated 02-12-2017. He contended that the special general body meeting held on 25-11-2012 was illegal and in violation of the bye-laws. He further contended that bye-law 20 stipulates that a special general body meeting can be convened only if 1/5th of the total number of members make a request in that regard, that in the instant case, no such requisition was made and therefore, the special general body meeting was not validly convened. The first respondent also contended that Ext.P11 order is in accordance with law and that if the appellant is aggrieved, its remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 83(1)(J) of the Act. 8. The learned single Judge considered the rival contentions and dismissed the writ petition by judgment delivered on 10-06-2017. The learned single Judge held that after the enquiry as contemplated in Rule 18(a) of the Rules is held by the Managing Committee, if the committee desires to convene a special general body meeting, it should have a requisition in writing from 1/5th of the total number of members as contemplated in Rule 36(1)(b) of the Rules and bye-law 16(4) of the bye-laws of the society, that in the instant case, the requisition was not made by 1/5th of the total number of members, that only two members had moved to expel the second respondent and therefore, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. The writ petitioner has, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal. 9. We heard Sri. S. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. The writ petitioner has, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal. 9. We heard Sri. S. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. Sunil Kuriakose, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the Joint Registrar and Sri. P.P. Jacob, learned counsel appearing for second respondent. Sri. S. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted, relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Abdul Rehman K.A. v. Cheranelloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., [ 2015(1) KHC 46 ] that a special general body meeting can be convened by the Managing Committee of the society at any time, that the latter part of Section 30(1) of the Act deals only with convening of special general body meeting at the instance of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or members of the society, that Rule 36 of the Rules has to be read in the light of Section 30 of the Act and thus read, it can be seen that a special general body meeting can be convened at any time and such being the situation, it is not necessary that a requisition to convene a special general body meeting signed by 1/5th of the total number of members of the society should have been given, to convene the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012. 10. Referring to the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 30 of the Act and Rules 18 and 36 of the Rules, learned counsel contended that as the special general body meeting was validly convened, the Joint Registrar erred in rescinding the resolution adopted by the special general body on 25-11-2012 on the ground that it was not validly convened. Referring to bye-laws 16(4) and 20 of the bye-laws, learned counsel contended that as the Act and the Rules permit even a single member of the society to move a resolution to expel another member of the society from its membership and the managing committee is also empowered to convene a special general body meeting, the Joint Registrar erred in holding that as the requisition to convene the special general body meeting was not given by 1/5th of the total number of members of the society, the meeting held on 25-11-2012 was not in order. Referring to Section 26 of the Act, learned counsel for appellant contended that the Joint Registrar erred in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on him under Rules 176 of the Rules. Referring to Section 26 of the Act, learned counsel for appellant contended that the Joint Registrar erred in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on him under Rules 176 of the Rules. Learned counsel contended that the Joint Registrar has not held that the resolution is ultra vires the objects of the society or is against the provisions of the Act, Rules, bye-laws or of any direction or instructions issued by the Department, or that the resolution expelling the second respondent from the membership of the society is calculated to disturb the peaceful and orderly working of the society or is contrary to the better interest of the society and therefore, the impugned order is one without jurisdiction. Learned counsel contended that the order passed by the Joint Registrar rescinding the resolution adopted by the special general body at the meeting held on 25-11-2012 is therefore liable to be set aside. 11. Per contra, reiterating the contentions raised before the learned single Judge, learned Government Pleader appearing for the Joint Registrar and Sri. P.P. Jacob, learned counsel appearing for second respondent contended that even assuming that the Managing Committee can, after considering Ext.P1 resolution, take a decision to expel the second respondent from the membership of the society, it could have convened the special general body meeting only if 1/5th of the total number of members of the society had given a requisition to convene the meeting. Learned counsel appearing for respondents relied on the provisions contained in Rule 36 of the Rules and Section 30 of the Act in support of their contentions. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also contended that as the decision to expel the second respondent from the membership of the society was not taken by the Managing Committee by itself, but by the general body, pursuant to a resolution moved by two members of the society, the resolution could not have been entertained by the Managing Committee. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that, in cases where the Managing Committee does not take steps to expel a member, the resolution should be moved by 1/5th of the total number of members. Learned counsel submitted that as the special general body meeting was not validly convened, the Joint Registrar acted well within his powers in rescinding the resolution expelling the second respondent from the membership of the society. Learned counsel submitted that as the special general body meeting was not validly convened, the Joint Registrar acted well within his powers in rescinding the resolution expelling the second respondent from the membership of the society. Learned counsel concluded his contentions by submitting that as the learned single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment. 12. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The fact that a special general body meeting was held on 25-11-2012 and at that meeting, by a majority of 130 members against 03, a resolution was adopted to expel the second respondent from the membership of the appellant society, are not in dispute. The main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether that meeting was properly convened or not. While the appellant contends that the meeting was properly convened, the respondents contend that the meeting was not properly convened. The relevant provisions governing the expulsion of a member from the membership of a society are those contained in Sections 17 and 30 of the Act and Rules 18 and 36 of the Rules. Sections 17 and 30 of the Act read as follows:- “17. Expulsion of members:- (1) Any member of a society, who has acted, adverse to the interests of the society, or has failed to comply with the provision of the bye-law may be expelled upon a resolution of the general body passed at a special meeting convened for the purpose by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members present and voting at the meeting. (2) No member shall be expelled under sub-section (1) without being given an opportunity of making his representation. (3) A copy of the resolution expelling a member shall be communicated to the member within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of the resolution. (4) The expulsion from membership may involve forfeiture of shares held by the member. (5) No member of the society who has been expelled under sub-section (1) shall be eligible for re-admission as member of that society, for a period of one year from the date of such expulsion” “30. (4) The expulsion from membership may involve forfeiture of shares held by the member. (5) No member of the society who has been expelled under sub-section (1) shall be eligible for re-admission as member of that society, for a period of one year from the date of such expulsion” “30. Special general body meetings.- (1) The committee of a society may at any time, call a special general body meeting of the society and shall call such meeting within one month after receipt of a requisition in writing from the Registrar or from such number of members or a proportion of the total number of members, as may be prescribed. (2) If a special general body meeting of a society is not called in accordance with the requisition referred to in sub-section (1), the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf shall have power to call such meeting and that meeting shall be deemed to be a meeting called by the committee. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf may, at any time, call a special general body meeting of the society in such manner and at such time and place within the area of its operation as he may direct and such meeting shall be deemed to be a meeting called by the committee. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a society, the Registrar or any person authorised by him in this behalf may, at any time summon a meeting of the committee of the society and that meeting shall be deemed to be a meeting called in accordance with the bye-laws of the society and shall have power to transact all business which can be transacted at a meeting of the committee under the bye-laws of the society and such other business as is specially mentioned in the requisition made by the Registrar or the person authorised. (5) The Registrar or any other person deputed by him shall have the right to attend the committee or general body meeting of any society convened in accordance with the provisions of this section.” 13. Rules 18 and 36 of the Rules read as follows: 18. (5) The Registrar or any other person deputed by him shall have the right to attend the committee or general body meeting of any society convened in accordance with the provisions of this section.” 13. Rules 18 and 36 of the Rules read as follows: 18. Procedure for the expulsion of members:- A member who has acted adversely to the interest of the society or has failed to comply with the provisions of the bye-laws may be expelled from the society as per S.17, adopting the following procedure:- (a) Where any member of a society proposes to bring a resolution for expulsion of any other member he shall give a written notice thereof, to the Chairman of the society. On receipt of such notice or when the Committee itself decides to bring in such resolution, the Committee shall send a registered notice to the member concerned to furnish his explanation, if any, in the matter within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The member shall also be given an opportunity for being heard in person, if he so desires. (b) On obtaining the explanation, if any, and on being heard in person, if he so desires and on giving opportunity to the complainant, to substantiate his allegation or after taking into consideration any written representation which he might have sent to the Committee or General Body, the committee shall decide as to the course of action to be adopted against the member concerned. If the committee decides to expel the member it shall convene a special General Body meeting after issuing due notice appending the agenda thereto and place the matter before it for decision under Section 17.” “36. Power to call Special General Body Meeting:- (1) The committee of a society shall call a special general body meeting thereof under sub-section (1) of S.30.- (a) within one month from the date of receipt of a requisition in writing from the Registrar; or (b) within one month from the date of receipt of a requisition in writing from 1/5th of the total number of members. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a society as to the mode of summoning general meetings and the object, time and place of such meetings, the Registrar or any person authorised by him my at any time summon a special general body meeting of the society in such manner and at such time and place within the area of its operation as he may direct. He may also direct who should preside over such meetings and what matters shall be discussed by the meeting. Such meetings shall have all the powers of a meeting called according to the provisions of the bye-laws of the society notwithstanding that the meeting does not have the quorum fixed for a general body meeting under the bye-laws. Such meetings will not be invalid on the ground of any defect in the issue of notice, if the Registrar is of opinion that business transacted and the decision taken in the meeting were in the better interest of the society, and orders that the meeting and its deliberations were in order. The orders of the Registrar in the matter shall be final. The expenses for summoning such meetings shall be borne by the society. (3) The procedure to be followed and the business to be transacted in a meeting of the committee summoned under sub-section (4) of S.30 shall be as directed in the requisition made by the Registrar or the person authorised. No decision of the committee shall be invalid on the ground that there was no quorum as stipulated in the bye-laws or that there was some defect in the issue of notice to the members of the committee in that behalf.” 14. Since the dispute also centres around the bye-laws of the appellant society, the relevant bye-laws namely bye-laws 12, 16, 20 and 21 are also extracted below: “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX” 15. Section 17 of the Act stipulates that any member of a society who has acted adverse to the interests of the society, or has failed to comply with the provisions of the bye-laws, may be expelled upon a resolution of the general body passed at a special meeting convened for the purpose. Such resolution has to be supported by not less than two third of the total number of members present and voting at the meeting. Such resolution has to be supported by not less than two third of the total number of members present and voting at the meeting. In the instant case, such a resolution was passed by the general body of the society at the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012. At that meeting, 131 members of the society were present and 130 out of them voted. 127 members voted in favour of Ext.P1 resolution to expel the second respondent from membership of the society. Three persons including the second respondent voted against Ext.P1 resolution. The resolution was carried by a majority of not less than two third of the members present and voting. The Joint Registrar however rescinded the resolution on the ground that the special general body meeting was not validly convened for the reason that 1/5th of the total number of members of the society had not given a requisition in writing to convene such a meeting. He also held that in a democratic set up, expression of dissent and questioning the decision taken by the managing committee cannot be held to be an act adverse to the interests of the society. 16. As stated earlier, the main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the meeting held on 25.11.2012 was lawfully convened. Section 30 of the Act deals with special general body meetings. It empowers the managing committee of a society to call a special general body meeting of the society at any time. It also obliges the managing committee to call such a meeting within one month after receipt of a requisition in writing in that regard from the Registrar or from such number of members or a proportion of the total number of members as may be prescribed. In the instant case, the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012 was not one convened by the managing committee of the society on its own. It was convened pursuant to a notice given by two members of the society. The expression “prescribed” is defined in Section 2(o) of the Act to mean prescribed by rules made under the Act. In the instant case, the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012 was not one convened by the managing committee of the society on its own. It was convened pursuant to a notice given by two members of the society. The expression “prescribed” is defined in Section 2(o) of the Act to mean prescribed by rules made under the Act. Rule 36 of the Rules stipulates that the managing committee of a society shall call a special general body meeting under sub Section (1) of Section 30 of the Act within one month from the date of receipt of a requisition in writing from the Registrar or within one month from the date of receipt of a requisition in writing from 1/5th of the total number of members. The rules thus prescribe that the managing committee is bound to convene a general body meeting only in the event of 1/5th of the total number of members of the society requisitioning such a meeting in writing. In the instant case, a special general body meeting was not requisitioned by 1/5th of the total number of members of the society but only by two among its members. 17. Interpreting section 30 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules, a Division Bench of this court has in Abdul Rahman K.A. v. Cheranalloor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ekm and others ( 2015 (1) KHC 46 ) held that Rule 36 has to be read in the light of Section 30 of the Act and if Section 30 is closely read, it can be seen that the stipulations therein do not qualify the power of the managing committee to convene a special general body meeting at any time but only clarifies that a special general body meeting shall be convened on receipt of a requisition in writing from the Registrar or such number of members or a proportion of the total number of members of the society, as may be prescribed. Bye-law 16 of the Bye-laws is identical to Section 30 of the Act. Bye-law 16(2) provides that there shall be two types of general body meetings: (i) annual general body meeting and (ii) special general body meeting. Bye-law 16(3) provides that the annual general body meeting shall be held before 31st March of every year or immediately before or within such time as may be stipulated by the Registrar. Bye-law 16(2) provides that there shall be two types of general body meetings: (i) annual general body meeting and (ii) special general body meeting. Bye-law 16(3) provides that the annual general body meeting shall be held before 31st March of every year or immediately before or within such time as may be stipulated by the Registrar. Bye-law 16(4) provides that a special general body meeting may be convened at any time by the managing committee. It is also stipulated that in the event of 1/5th of the members of the society giving a requisition or the Registrar of Co-operative Societies issuing a direction, the Chairman of the managing committee shall convene a special general body. Bye-law 20 stipulates that one week's notice shall be given of the general body meeting. It also stipulates the mode of service. Bye-law 21 stipulates the quorum for a general body meeting. It is stipulated that the quorum shall be 25 members or 1/5th of the total number of members whichever is less. 18. Going by the provisions contained in Section 30 of the Act, Rule 36 of the Rules and the bye-laws above-referred to, we are of the opinion that the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012 cannot be said to be a meeting which was not validly convened. Though relying on Rule 18 of the Rules it was contended before the learned single Judge that even a single member of the society can bring a resolution for expulsion of any other member and therefore the managing committee was perfectly justified in convening a special general body meeting based on the requisition given by two members of the society, the learned single Judge repelled the said contention holding that to convene a special general body meeting, a requisition should have been received by the managing committee from not less than 1/5th of the total number of members of the society. The learned single Judge held that Rule 18 would not empower the managing committee of the society to convene a special general body meeting. 19. The learned single Judge held that Rule 18 would not empower the managing committee of the society to convene a special general body meeting. 19. After hearing learned counsel on both sides and after going through the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 18 of the Act and Rules 18 and 36 of the Rules and the relevant provisions contained in the bye-laws extracted above, we are of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge on Rule 18 of the Rules cannot be accepted. Rule 18 stipulates that a member who has acted adversely to the interest of the society may be expelled from the society as per Section 17 of the Act after following the procedure prescribed in Rule 18. The procedure for expulsion of members is not set out in Section 17 of the Act. It is set out only in Rule 18 of the Rules. All that Section 17 of the Act stipulates is that any member of a society, who has acted adversely to the interests of the society or has failed to comply with the provisions of the bye-laws may be expelled, upon a resolution of the general body passed at a special meeting convened for the purpose, by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of members present and voting at the meeting. Rule 18 which lays down the procedure for such expulsion stipulates that where any member of a society proposes to bring a resolution for expulsion of any other member he shall give a written notice thereof to the Chairman of the society. It further stipulates that on receipt of such notice, the committee shall send a registered notice to the member concerned calling upon him to furnish his explanation in the matter within 15 days of receipt of the notice. It further stipulates that the member shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in person, if he so desires. Clause (b) of Rule 18 stipulates that after considering the explanation if any offered by the member concerned and after hearing him in person if he so desires, and after giving the complainant an opportunity to substantiate his allegations, the committee shall decide as to the course of action to be adopted against the member concerned, meaning thereby the member who is sought to be expelled from the membership of the society. It is further stipulated that if the committee decides to expel the member, it shall convene a special general body meeting after issuing due notice and place the matter for decision under the provisions of Section 17. 20. In the instant case, the resolution to remove the second respondent from membership of the appellant society was moved by two members of the society. On the terms of Rule 18 above referred to, it cannot be said that the said resolution, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P1, was not in order. The Managing Committee considered it at its meeting held on 30.10.2012 after issuing notice to the second respondent. The second respondent did not choose to respond to the notice or to appear in person for the hearing held on 30.10.2012. The Managing Committee that met on 31.10.2012 therefore resolved to convene a special general body meeting on 25.11.2012 and to place the resolution for consideration at that meeting. It was thereafter that the second respondent submitted Ext.P3 reply dated 29.10.2012. The said reply was received by the Managing Committee on 2.11.2012. The Managing Committee that met on 19.11.2012 considered the said reply and once again decided to place it for consideration before the special general body as it was not acceptable to them. Bye-law 12(2) also contemplates the expulsion of a member from the membership of the society. The stipulations in Section 30 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules in our opinion, relate only to the convening of a special general body meeting. Section 30 of the Act or Rule 36 of the Rules do not govern the right of a member to move a resolution seeking the expulsion of another member or prescribe the procedure for moving such a resolution. That right to seek the expulsion of another member is recognised only in Rule 18 of the Rules. Section 30 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules only deal with the convening of a special general body meeting. 21. That right to seek the expulsion of another member is recognised only in Rule 18 of the Rules. Section 30 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules only deal with the convening of a special general body meeting. 21. The stipulation in Section 30 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules that a special general body meeting shall be convened within one month from the date of receipt of a requisition in writing from 1/5th of the total number of members of the society cannot in our opinion be interpreted to mean that a resolution seeking the expulsion of another member can be moved only by 1/5th of the total number of members of the society. Rule 18 on the other hand empowers any member of a society to bring a resolution for expulsion of another member. Section 17 of the Act does not stipulate that a resolution seeking the expulsion of a member of the society can be moved only by 1/5th of the total number of members of the society. The requisition to convene the special general body meeting contemplated in Section 30 of the Act and Rule 36 of the Rules is in our opinion for purposes other than the expulsion of a member of the society. In the case of expulsion of members, the special general body meeting has to be convened by the committee of the society after considering the explanation furnished by the member concerned. It is evident from Rule 18(b) of the Rules that if the managing committee decides to expel a member, after considering the written representation if any given by him and after hearing him, if he so desires, it has to convene a special general body meeting after issuing due notice and place the matter before it for decision under Section 17 of the Act. The Joint Registrar as well as the learned single Judge have in our opinion failed to take into account this crucial and significant aspect of the matter. 22. Bye-law 12(3)(e) of the bye-laws provides that a member who is expelled shall have a right of appeal to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The period of limitation for filing an appeal is also prescribed therein. 22. Bye-law 12(3)(e) of the bye-laws provides that a member who is expelled shall have a right of appeal to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The period of limitation for filing an appeal is also prescribed therein. Under Section 83(1)(c) of the Act, an appeal shall lie against the decision of a society refusing to admit any person as a member of the society or expelling any member of the society. Subsection (2) of Section 83 of the Act stipulates that any appeal or decision under sub-section (1) shall be made within sixty days from the date of the order or decision if the order or decision was made by the Registrar to the Government and in other cases to the Registrar. In the instant case, as the decision expelling the second respondent from the membership of the society was one made by the society, an appeal lies only to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The second respondent had in fact invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Registrar when he submitted Ext.P7 appeal before the Joint Registrar. The Government have by notification No.255/69/AD dated 28.6.1969 published in Kerala Gazette No.27 dated 8.7.1969 conferred on the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies all the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Joint Registrar was therefore competent to hear and dispose of Ext.P7 appeal. The Joint Registrar considered the said appeal and allowed it by Ext.P11 order mainly on the ground that the special general body meeting held on 25.11.2012 was not validly convened. It is no doubt true that he has in Ext.P11 order also stated that in a democratic set up, expressing dissent and questioning the decision taken by the Managing Committee cannot be held to be an act adverse to the interests of the society. He has however not elaborated on the issue. He has also not acted as the appellate authority but has purported to exercise the power conferred on him under Rule 176 of the Rules. In the view that we have taken, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to succeed. He has however not elaborated on the issue. He has also not acted as the appellate authority but has purported to exercise the power conferred on him under Rule 176 of the Rules. In the view that we have taken, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to succeed. However, having regard to the fact that the Joint Registrar has rested his decision mainly on the invalidity of the special general body meeting, we are of the opinion that the second respondent should be afforded an opportunity to have his appeal heard and decided afresh on the merits and for that purpose we deem it appropriate, even while interfering with the impugned judgment, to direct the Joint Registrar to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal afresh, after affording both sides an opportunity of being heard. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P11 order and direct the Joint Registrar to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal afresh, after affording both sides an opportunity of being heard. The Joint Registrar shall pass appropriate further orders in the matter expeditiously and in any event within an outer limit of three months from the date on which the appellant produces a certified copy of this judgment before him.