JUDGMENT : CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. The Managing Committee of the Arakkuparamba Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. ('the Bank' for short) comprises of 9 members as per Clause 31(2) of its Bye-laws who shall be the following: i. General - 4 members ii. Women - 3 members iii. Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe - 1 member iv. Depositor - 1 member The Bye-law specifically states that only a member having a fixed deposit of rupees ten thousand and above shall be entitled to be a member of the Managing Committee in the category reserved for depositor. Those who fall in the reserved category of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, women or depositor can however get elected in the general category also as per the Bye-laws. But only the A Class members have the right to vote as per the Bye-laws and steps were initiated to conduct the election to the Managing Committee by notification dated 26.12.2018. 2. The appellants submitted their nomination papers in time on 14.1.2019 in the category reserved for depositor on which date they had a deposit of Rs. 14733/- and Rs. 11278/- respectively in the Bank. But the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the appellants by Exts.P5 and P6 orders dated 15.1.2019 on the ground that the amounts were not in fixed deposit. The rejection was challenged in a writ petition which was dismissed observing that the deposits were not fixed and made on the eve of election. The existence of an alternate remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short) to raise an election dispute was yet another reason stated. 3. Mr. D. Somasundaram, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants points out that Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act containing a non-obstante clause has been overlooked which is as follows: “(1C). Notwithstanding anything contained in the bye-laws of a Primary Credit Society or an Urban Co-operative Bank, one seat in the committee of each such society shall be reserved for the members having a deposit of ten thousand rupees and above.” (emphasis supplied) It is the case of the appellants that whatever said in the Bye-laws of the Bank which is a Primary Credit Society as regards the nature of the deposit is liable to be ignored in the light of Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act. 4. Mrs. 4. Mrs. K.R. Deepa, Senior Government Pleader contends that Rule 35A(6)(d)(ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short) specifies the qualifications which is as under: “(d) No member shall be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat in the committee, if he- (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (ii) does not possess the necessary qualifications, if any, specified in the bye-laws of the society for election and as a member of the committee, or (iii) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” It is the case of the Government that the Bye-laws qualify the nature of the deposit as fixed which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules when alone they shall be ignored under Section 13A of the Act. 5. Mr. T.R. Harikumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondent who is also a depositor asserts that the appellants being flee by night depositors cannot protect the interest of that category. The very purpose of giving representation to the category of depositors in the Managing Committee of the Bank is to instill confidence in them in the day-to-day affairs. It is the case of the respondent that the appellants can question the rejection of their nomination papers in a dispute raised after the election under Section 69(3) of the Act. Therefore the impugned judgment relegating the appellants to the alternate statutory remedy available after the declaration of results cannot be faulted with. 6. A 'deposit' in the context of Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act can only mean placing the money in the Bank for safe keeping whether it be in Savings Bank Account or Fixed Deposit or Flexi Deposit. The nature of the deposit has lost its relevance in banking parlance (though the rate of interest may vary) since even a Flexi Deposit is linked to the Savings Bank Account. Money can be withdrawn from the Flexi Deposit (which is otherwise a Fixed Deposit) at any time before the term without losing interest on the balance amount in deposit. All that is contemplated by Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act is that one should have placed a minimum of ten thousand rupees in an account with the Bank to be termed as a depositor. All that is contemplated by Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act is that one should have placed a minimum of ten thousand rupees in an account with the Bank to be termed as a depositor. The non obstante clause contained therein makes the description of the nature of the deposit in the Bye-laws of the Bank irrelevant and otiose for the purpose. 7. It is true that no member shall be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat in the committee if he does not possess the necessary qualifications specified in the Bye-laws of the Bank for election. But Rule 35A(6)(d) (ii) of the Rules to that effect (in the wake of the Bye-laws of the Bank as regards deposit) does not operate in view of the said non-obstante clause. Whatever stipulations are made in the Bye-laws of the Bank as regards the nature of deposit ceases to have effect in view of the non-obstante clause in Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act. The Bye-laws of the Bank have at any rate to be consistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules (and cannot be contrary to it) as explicitly stated in Section 13A of the Act. 8. It transpires that the appellants had a deposit of Rs. 14733/- and Rs. 11278/- respectively in the Bank on the dates on which the nomination papers were submitted (14.1.2019) and were scrutinised (15.1.2019). The documents reveal that the first appellant who had a deposit of Rs. 14733/- in his Savings Bank Account shifted Rs. 10,000/- there from to a Fixed Deposit on the afternoon of 14.1.2019. This does not matter at all even though it is highlighted as one of the reasons in the judgment impugned to hold that the first appellant did not satisfy the criteria. The total of the amounts held in deposit with the Bank as on the date of submission of the nomination papers and its scrutiny alone will decide the eligibility criteria. The nicer distinction based on the nature of the deposit in the light of the Bye-laws of the Bank is out of place so long as Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act stipulates only amount in 'deposit'. Such a person cannot be termed as a transient depositor incapable of protecting the interest of the category whom he represents in the managing committee of the Bank. 9. Such a person cannot be termed as a transient depositor incapable of protecting the interest of the category whom he represents in the managing committee of the Bank. 9. We felt that the nomination papers submitted by the appellants were rejected on totally untenable grounds without reference to Section 28(1)(1C) of the Act warranting interference at the threshold. We therefore issued an interim direction in this appeal to the Returning Officer to provisionally accept the nomination papers and permit the appellants to contest the election. It is reported that the first appellant has secured the maximum votes eligible to be elected as a member of the Managing Committee in the reserved category of depositor. Our timely interference was only to correct or smoothen the progress of the election without upsetting in any manner the election calendar of the State Cooperative Election Commission [See: Kuttiyachan Joseph and another v. P.V. Manoharan and others [ 2018(3) KLT 631 (DB)] and Nalinam T. and others v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies [ 2011(2) KLT 991 ]. We would have desisted from interference if the grievance was in regard to the improper acceptance of the nomination papers which may impede the process of election. We quash Ext.P5 order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper and further direct the official respondents to declare the result of the election of the first appellant. There is no necessity to quash Ext.P6 order of the Returning Officer since the second appellant was not successful in the election and the impugned judgment is accordingly reversed. The writ appeal is allowed. No costs.