JUDGMENT : It is beyond doubt that Rule 27 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the KCS Rules' for brevity) mandates that a member of a credit society can seek to be admitted to another credit society only with the previous sanction of the Registrar and that a membership that he secured in contravention of this would be liable to termination upon the requisition of the Registrar. 2. The provisions of Rule 27 of the KCS Rules are not under challenge in this Writ Petition; the sole question pitched being whether the afore restriction applies to membership to all credit societies as a class or only to that in a second credit society of the same character and nature as the first one. 3. This issue has become in focus in this case because the petitioners assert that the second credit society, to which they secured membership, is of a completely different nature and type than the first one, in which they are admittedly members. The petitioners thus contend that when the nature of the two societies are different, then the rigour of Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules would not apply. 4. Before I move forward, I deem it appropriate to extract Rule 27 of the KCS Rules, which reads as under : 27. Prohibition of membership in two credit (x) societies : (1) A person applying for admission as a member of any credit society (not being a Financing Bank) shall be admitted as such member only with the previous sanction in writing of the Registrar, if on the date of such application such person is a member of any other credit society. Such sanction may be accorded by the Registrar either in relation to any individual credit society or in relation to class of credit societies]. (2) Where a person has become a member of any society referred to in sub-rule (1) in contravention of the provisions of that sub-rule, such society shall remove him from membership upon a written requisition from Registrar. 5. The petitioners concede that they are all members of various Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and that all of them, subsequently, took membership in the 2nd respondent-Urban Co-operative Society. 5. The petitioners concede that they are all members of various Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and that all of them, subsequently, took membership in the 2nd respondent-Urban Co-operative Society. They assail Ext.P5 order issued by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kasaragod, as per which, invoking his powers under Rule 27(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules for short) the said Authority has expelled them from their subsequent memberships in the 2nd respondent- Urban Co-operative Society. 6. The petitioners say that Ext.P5 is incompetent for two reasons: (a) because the first Society, of which they are members, is not of the same type as the 2nd respondent-Urban Co-operative Society herein; and (b) that in Ext.P5, the Joint Registrar could not have expelled them from the membership of the 2nd respondent-Urban Co operative Society, but could have only made a requisition, as is permitted under Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules. 7. I have heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.C.S.Sheeja, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 8. As regard the first contention above, Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued on the afore lines and from his submissions it is indubitable that there is no dispute that the petitioners are all persons who have already been admitted as members of certain Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and who have then voluntarily taken membership in the 2nd respondent-Urban Co operative Society. Sri.P.N.Mohanan vehemently argues that the Societies, of which the petitioners became members first, are Primary Agricultural Credit Societies as defined under Section 2(oaa); whereas the 2nd respondent- Society is an Urban Co-operative Society, as defined under Section 2(paa) of the KCS Act. He says, therefore, that since these two are totally different types of Societies, the rigour of Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules would not apply to the petitioners. 9. On the second contention regarding the nature of the directions in Ext.P5, Sri.P.N.Mohanan submits that the Joint Registrar could not have expelled the petitioners from the 2nd respondent-Society but could have only made a requisition to the said Society to do so. He says that Ext.P5, therefore, is incompetent in law. 10. 9. On the second contention regarding the nature of the directions in Ext.P5, Sri.P.N.Mohanan submits that the Joint Registrar could not have expelled the petitioners from the 2nd respondent-Society but could have only made a requisition to the said Society to do so. He says that Ext.P5, therefore, is incompetent in law. 10. In response to the above assertion of the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.C.S.Sheeja, submits that what is stated in Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules is that a person cannot be a member of two Credit Societies at the same time. She adds that all that is stated in the Rule is that the prohibition applies when a person takes membership in a second 'Credit Society' while being the member of another 'Credit Society'. She, therefore, says that notwithstanding the categorisation of the Credit Societies, based on the differences in their manner of operation, as long as long as they are 'Credit Societies', the rigour of Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules would apply. She adds that in any event of the matter, Rule 15(1) of the KCS Rules makes it ineluctable that the Societies involved in these cases come within the same class, namely, 'Credit Society’. 11. On the second issue, Smt.C.S.Sheeja, learned Senior Government Pleader, submits that there can be no doubt from Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules, that the Society concerned will have to remove the offending members from their rolls on the written requisition from the Registrar; and that in this case, the Registrar has done nothing more than to make such a recommendation to the Society to expel the petitioners from their membership on account on the violation noticed by him under Rule 27 of the KCS Rules. 12. I have considered the afore submissions very intently and am of the view that I cannot find favour with the petitioners on either of the two contentions impelled by them. 13. This is because, going by the terminology used in Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules, the prohibition mentioned therein is against a member of a ‘Credit Society’ becoming a member of another 'Credit Society'. Pertinently, the nature of the Credit Society is not specified under this Rule at all. 13. This is because, going by the terminology used in Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules, the prohibition mentioned therein is against a member of a ‘Credit Society’ becoming a member of another 'Credit Society'. Pertinently, the nature of the Credit Society is not specified under this Rule at all. Axiomatically, it can only be construed, which I am sure this Court can do very safely, that the prohibition is against a person becoming a member of another 'Credit Society' so as to avail financial facilities from such Society also, while already being a member of one Credit Society. 14. Viewed from that perspective and since the words used in Rule 27 of the KCS Rules are only 'Credit Society' without qualifying it in any further manner as per its nature of operation, I have no doubt that a transgression under the Rule is made the moment a person becomes the member of a ‘Credit Society’ while being the member of another 'Credit Society', even though they may be defined differently as per its nature and functions. 15. In any event, since both Primary Agricultural Credit Societies and Urban Co operative Societies are classified as ‘Credit Societies’ under Rule 15(1) of the KCS Rules, it would be of no avail of the petitioners in contending that they are different types of Societies, since Rule 27 of the KCS Rules takes in all types of ‘Credit Societies’ within one class/category. I, therefore, cannot offer support to the petitioners on this contention. 16. As regards the nature of directions in Ext.P5 order, I am without doubt that Sri.P.N.Mohanan has made out a case on a limited confines here, because, going by Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules, expulsion of the petitioners cannot be ordered by the Joint Registrar; but only a requisition to that effect can be made by him to the Society. However, this does not mean that Ext.P5 order is wholly bad or that it cannot be put into effect, since it will be sufficient that this Court modify the directions therein to make it in confirmity with Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules. However, this does not mean that Ext.P5 order is wholly bad or that it cannot be put into effect, since it will be sufficient that this Court modify the directions therein to make it in confirmity with Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules. Resultantly, I dismiss this Writ Petition; however, clarifying that the directions in Ext.P5 order shall be treated only as a requisition made by the Joint Registrar of Co operative Societies under Rule 27(2) of the KCS Rules; with the concomitant statutory objection on the 2nd respondent-Society to act on it in terms of law without any avoidable delay.