JUDGMENT : 1. In a very interesting turn of events, the members of the Managing Committee of a Cooperative Society the 3rd respondent herein, have approached this Court through this writ petition, impugning a Resolution adopted by the said Committee through majority, namely Ext.P1, as per which, certain persons have been resolved to be appointed as Sales Managers on commission basis in the services of the Society. 2. The petitioners allege that Ext.P1 Resolution is contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS Act and Rules’ for short) particularly because, as is clear from its first paragraph, a proposal to appoint “Depot Managers” even without the same being part of the Agenda for the meeting, namely Ext.P10, was considered by the committee and then resolved to appoint Sale Managers. 3. The petitioners assert that they, therefore, preferred their dissent against this resolution through Exts.P2, P3 and P4, but that the same were not recorded and consequently that they were constrained to approach the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, vide Exts.P6 to P9, complaining against it and the manner in which it was taken, and praying that the same be rescinded. 4. The petitioners thus, through their learned counsel-Shri B.S. Swathi Kumar, prays that Ext.P1 Resolution be set aside; or in the alternative, that the Joint Registrar be directed to conduct an enquiry into the whole issue under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules or under such other appropriate provisions of the KCS Act. 5. In response to the afore submissions of Shri B.S. Swathi Kumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader-Smt. C.S. Sheeja, submitted that she is not aware as to whether there was an additional Agenda before the Managing Committee on 03.08.2019, when Ext.P1 Resolution was adopted and further that, as is evident from the contents thereof, three persons have been resolved to be appointed as Sales Managers on commission basis. She says that she does not intend to make any comment on the validity of these decisions but requests that this Court may not enter into the controversy on its merits at this stage, especially because the writ petition may not be maintainable for the reason that the petitioners, being the members of the Managing Committee, cannot normally challenge its resolutions through a legal proceeding of this nature. 6. 6. On the question of maintainability of this writ petition, I certainly find some force in the submissions of Smt. C.S. Sheeja, since I am also not sure if the members of a Managing Committee can approach this Court, by filing a writ petition, against a resolution adopted by it through majority, notwithstanding their dissent. This is because, normally, all decisions in a Managing Committee, subject to the availability of the requisite quorum, can only be taken subject to the opinion of the majority and this pre-postulates situations where a few members may not be agreeable to it. However, if such members choose to challenge such decisions solely because they do not agree with it, the resultant scenario would be nothing short of chaos. In my firm view, such attempts cannot be ordinarily countenanced since the members of the committee have to work within themselves through active deliberation and persuasion. 7. That said, however, in the present case, the petitioners allege specifically that there was manipulation of the Agenda for the meeting and that the impugned resolution was taken without following due procedure. Even though it would not be within the province of this Court to consider these accusations conclusively, I am of the firm opinion that the competent statutory Authorities can certainly do so. Since the petitioners have already approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies by preferring Exts.P6 to P9 representations, I am of the view that the said Authority must consider the same, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the other members of the Managing Committee also. 8. In the afore perspective, I close this writ petition at the threshold without acceding to any of the prayers sought by the petitioners in this writ petition; however, directing the 1st respondent-Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take up Exts.P6 to P9 representations and consider the same, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as well as to respondents 3 to 13 herein and then decide whether any action, either under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules or under such other applicable provisions of the KCS Act is warranted, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. 9. I make it clear that when the afore exercise is completed, the Joint Registrar will advert to the observations and findings of this Court in the judgment in Swathy Mohan and Another vs. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies and Another, W.P. (C) No. 14939 of 2017 and the appointment of respondents 11 to 13, if already done, will be subject to such decision; but if, on the contrary, they have not been so appointed, it will be deferred until such time as the afore exercise is completed. 10. Since I have not issued notices to respondents 3 to 13, I reiteratingly clarify that the Joint Registrar will have to notify them properly and hear them before taking a final decision in terms of this judgment.