JUDGMENT : Ingenuity is not novel in litigation and therefore, Courts generally are seldom taken by surprise by it; but the contentions of the petitioners in this case tests it: They assert that a person, whose primary membership in a Co-operative Society, registered under the Provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, has been terminated, would nevertheless be entitled to continue as a member of its Managing Committee, to which he had been elected while being a member of the Society, unless he/she is removed from such position expressly by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by invoking Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. 2. To put it in perspective, the petitioners contend that they are entitled to function as the members of the Managing Committee of the Society involved in this case, until such time as they are removed from such position by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies through an order issued by him under Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, even though they may have been terminated from the primary membership of the Society. Interestingly, the petitioners rely for support on the judgment of this Court in Jayendrakumar v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies(General) [ 2019 (2) KLT 671 ]. 3. Inventive as it may seem, the above contentions of the petitioners do not find favour with me and I will state the reasons for such disapproval after the unexpendable facts are narrated. 4. The petitioners, who assert to be members of the second respondent – “Mulluvila Sarvodaya Milk Supplies Cooperative Society”; as also to be members of its Managing Committee, impugn Exhibit–P14 order of the Deputy Director of Diary Development, who is the functional Joint Registrar with respect to the said Society, terminating their primary membership of the Society and consequently removing them from the membership of its Managing Committee. 5. The petitioners allege that they were not given sufficient opportunity of proving their case that they are residing within the area of operation of the Society which, according to them, is the sole allegation against them; and that the Deputy Director has, in haste, issued Exhibit–P14 with a calculated design of removing them from the Managing Committee; thus enabling a Part Time Administrator to be appointed under the provisions of the Section 33 of the KCS Act. 6. 6. The petitioners submit that, as is clear from Exhibits – P6, P7 and P8, they are all residing within the area of operation of the Society and therefore, that the foundational factual basis of Exhibit-P14 is untenable and that the said order is, resultantly, rendered without legs to stand on. 7. Sri. P.N. Mohanan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, in addition to the afore contentions, also impelled certain other assertions based on Rule 44 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules(KCS Rules for short) and Section 33 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act(KCS Act for short). According to him, Exhibit – P14 was preceded by a notice, a copy of which has been produced as Exhibit – P15, which clearly indicates that the enquiry by the Deputy Director was based only on Rule 16(4) of the KCS Rules; and therefore, that the conclusions and directions in Exhibit–P14, which disqualifies the petitioners as members of the Managing Committee under Section 44(1) (j) of the KCS Rules and in then appointing a Part Time Administrator under Section 33 of the KCS Act, are wholly illegal and impermissible, because none of them were issued with a prior notice under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules; and therefore that, going by the judgment of this Court in Jayendrakumar (supra), their removal as members of the Managing Committee is illegal and unconstitutional. 8. Sri. Bimal K Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader, refuted the afore contentions of Sri. P.N. Mohanan by asserting that there was no legal requirement for the petitioners being expressly removed from the membership of the Managing Committee under Rule 44 of the KCS Rules or in issuing them any notice under Section 33 of the KCS Act before appointing a Part Time Administrator, because they have been removed from the primary membership of the Society itself and consequently that their membership in the Managing Committee, which is only a facet of their membership in the Society, would automatically cease. He asserts, therefore, that the contentions that Exhibit–P14 is vitiated because notices under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules or under Section 33 of the KCS Act have not been issued, would be of no relevance and without any statutory or legal support. 9. Sri. He asserts, therefore, that the contentions that Exhibit–P14 is vitiated because notices under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules or under Section 33 of the KCS Act have not been issued, would be of no relevance and without any statutory or legal support. 9. Sri. M.R. Sasith, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, submits that it was his client's complaint that had lead to Exhibit – P14 order and he contends that the said order is irreproachable and without fault. According to the learned counsel, the Deputy Director has meticulously considered all the relevant and germane aspects fully; and therefore, that the petitioners do not obtain locus to challenge it before this Court. 10. I have critically analysed the submissions made before me as afore and I am persuaded to the view that though I have find substantial force in the submissions of Sri. P.N. Mohanan with respect to the removal of the petitioners from the primary membership of the Society, I am afraid that I cannot offer favour to his corollary submissions based on Section 33 or Rule 44(3) of the KCS Act and Rules respectively. 11. I say as above because, a reading of Exhibit–P14 order would indicate that the only reason why the petitioners have been removed as members of the Society, under Rule 16(4) of the KCS Rules, is because they did not produce “sufficient” documents in substantiation of their assertion that they are residing within the area of its operation. I am firm in my mind that it is not sufficient for a Statutory Authority in so concluding as he has done because the removal of the petitioners from the primary membership of the Society would visit them with severe consequences; and therefore, sufficient and reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to them to prove their case through relevant and germane materials, rather than merely recording that because they have not produced any records, they would automatically cease to be the members of the Society. 12. 12. That said, however, the allegations of the petitioners that they were not given notices under Section 33 of the KCS Act and under Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules, before they were removed as members of the Managing Committee and before a Part Time Administrator was appointed, would be of no consequence or relevance because had they been validly removed from the primary membership of the Society, then all the attributes of such membership, which includes their position in the Managing Committee, would also automatically cease on the day they are removed from such membership. 13. Further, the petitioners' contention, hinged on the declarations made by this Court in Jayendrakumar (supra), would also be of no avail to them because the said judgment was delivered in the context of the removal of a person as a member of the Managing Committee of a Society, consequent to him acquiring a disqualification to continue as such under Rule 44(1) of the KCS Rules; and this Court held that in such cases, even if the person has acquired any such disqualification, his/her membership in the Managing Committee would not cease unless the Registrar of Co-operative Societies remove him/her under the prescriptions of Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules, which enjoins the said Authority to issue a prior notice to such person before he/she is removed. However, there was no allegation against the petitioners in that case, as is evident from the judgment, that they had been removed from the membership of the Society; and on the contrary, it was unequivocally admitted that they were continuing as its members. 14. In contra-distinction, in the case at hand, it is alleged that the petitioners have been removed even as primary members of the Society and hence it is incontestable that the declarations in Jayendrakumar (supra) would have no bearing on the evaluation of the facts and contentions presented in this case. 15. I, therefore, cannot find favour with their submissions, that unless they were given prior notices and action completed under Rule 44(3) and Section 33 of the KCS Rules and Act respectively, they would continue to be Managing Committee members even if they have been properly removed from the primary membership of the Society, since it is untenable and incapable of obtaining the imprimatur of this Court. 16. 16. I am certain that had the petitioners been removed as per law from the primary membership of the Society, then they would automatically and forthwith cease to be members of the Managing Committee de-hors the provisions of Rule 44 (3) of the KCS Rules, since the said Rule begins by prescribing that “no member of the society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of committee of the society,” if he suffers from the disqualification enumerated therein; thus making it limpid that the said provision applies only to a primary member and no one else. 17. In the afore circumstances and in the above perspective, I order this Writ Petition and set aside Exhibit – P14 since I cannot find the removal of the petitioners from the primary membership of the Society to have been done in terms of law; and I consequently, direct the Deputy Director – respondent No.1, to reconsider the complaint of the 3rd respondent, after affording necessary opportunity to him as well/as to the petitioners and to then decide whether the petitioners are liable to be removed from the primary membership of the Society, adverting to all the materials and documents that may be produced before the said Authority by the parties, in terms of law. 18. The afore exercise shall be completed by the Deputy Registrar as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed, the present status quo with respect to the management of the Society will continue and the Part Time Administrator or the Administrative Committee, who is/are in charge of the affairs of the Society, will continue to be in such position, until orders are issued by the Competent Authority in terms of this judgment. This Writ Petition is thus ordered.