JUDGMENT : 1. In usual parlance, especially parliamentary, a “No-confidence motion” is a proposal for a floor test in a House to determine if the person/persons who occupy a position of responsibility, consequent to them being placed in such position by the said House, is worthy of its confidence to continue or otherwise. Generally, the House decides this through a majority decision, subject to specific statutory prescription, if any and the person in power is ousted if he fails such test. 2. The decisional query in this case is not relating to a No-Confidence Motion as such, but against whom can it be moved and carried; specifically, if the members of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society can, under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules (KCS Act and KCS Rules for short) can seek to move such a motion against another member and consequently seek his/her expulsion from the said Committee. 3. The petitioner, who claims to be the member of the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent-Karuvanthiruthy Service Co-operative Bank Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for short), seeks that a No-Confidence motion, proposed by him through Ext.P1, against respondents 3 and 4, who are also the elected members of the said Committee, be allowed to be moved and then to be concluded as per law by the 2nd respondent-Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. 4. The petitioner's specific contention is that it is possible in law to remove a Committee member from such position through a No-Confidence motion and relies on Rule 43A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (KCS Rules for short), in substantiation of this. According to him, he is entitled to move a No- Confidence motion against another member and that on the same being adopted, the person against whom the motion is moved, will cease to be the member of the Managing Committee of the Society. It is on this basis that the petitioner impels the prayers made by him in this writ petition. 5. When Sri. It is on this basis that the petitioner impels the prayers made by him in this writ petition. 5. When Sri. P.P. Jacob, the learned counsel for the petitioner, makes the afore assertions, it is astonishing that the petitioner, who himself is a member of the Managing Committee, should seek such a prayer because the impression he seems to carry-that on adoption of a No Confidence motion by the members of the Committee against another, the latter will cease to be a member-is irrefutably in conflict with all basic democratic principles and antipodean to Rule 44(3) of the KCS Rules, which mandate that a member of the Managing Committee can be removed only in the manner stipulated therein. 6. The proposition of the petitioner that a member of the Managing Committee of a Society can be removed from such position merely through a No Confidence motion adopted by the other members against him/her is, in my view, solely on account of his misinterpretation of the statutory provisions and for no other, since Rule 43A of the KCS Rules, which postulates the manner of such motion, indubitably provides that a Committee shall remove its President, Vice President, Treasurer or any other officer from its office through a No Confidence motion. 7. The petitioner contends that the word “officer” in the Rule obtains its meaning from Section 2(n) of the KCS Act, which takes into its fold even a member of the Managing Committee; and therefore, that even a member can be ousted from his democratically elected post on such motion being adopted against him/her. 8. It requires no intricate discourse to raze the above legal contentions of the petitioner, since a member of the Managing Committee of the Society does not hold such position on account of the confidence of the other members on him/her, but expressly on being elected validly by its General Body; while the “officers” mentioned in Rule 43A of the KCS Rules certainly occupy such position only on the confidence of the Committee which elected them. 9. 9. On the other hand, the definition of the word “officer” in Section 2(n) of the KCS Act is intended to define it generally with regard to the duties, responsibilities and penalties applicable to all the persons in charge of the management of a Society, particularly with reference to Sections 32, 65, 66 and 68 of the Act; but not within the confines of Rule 43A of the KCS Rules, which only deals with the confidence of the Committee in an officer, which it has elected from themselves. 10. In any event, Rule 44(2) of the KCS Rules enunciates the types of disqualification that may befall a member of the Managing Committee, thus leading to his/her removal under Rule 44(3) thereof by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, but adoption of a No- Confidence Motion by the Committee against such member is not one among them and consequently, no action under Rule 44(3) can be taken even by the Registrar to remove a member from the Committee for such reason. 11. It is thus rendered absolutely certain that the word “officer” in Rule 44A of the KCS Rules will obtain its meaning ejusdem generis with the other specified positions therein and can, resultantly, refer to only those which are akin to them and no other. 12. The word “officer” in Rule 43A of the KCS Rules cannot, therefore, even by the most extravagant stretch of imagination, take in a member of the Managing Committee and it is staggering to even propose that the elected position of a member of the Managing Committee is not more than that of an officer, thus bringing it within the rigour of the said Rule. Obviously, I cannot, therefore, offer imprimatur to the assertions, contentions and prayers made and sought for in this writ petition and I am firmly of the view that this Writ Petition is misconceived. 13. In fact, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. C.S. Sheeja and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 also support my view as afore and they pray that this Writ Petition be dismissed with exemplary costs. 14. 13. In fact, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. C.S. Sheeja and the learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 also support my view as afore and they pray that this Writ Petition be dismissed with exemplary costs. 14. Ergo, I dismiss this Writ Petition, however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to invoke all his other remedies, as may be available, if he requires respondents 3 and 4 to be removed as the members of the Managing Committee in terms of Rule 44 of the KCS Rules or such other applicable provisions.