JUDGMENT : Exts.P1 and P2 notices under Rule 16(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules calling for objections against removal of 4464 persons including the petitioners from the membership of the third respondent Society, are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri.P.C.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 and Smt.Sheeja.C.S, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. 3. The third respondent Society was under the charge of an Administrator during the period from 22.10.2011 to 28.03.2015. During the said period, the petitioners and others, totalling to 4464 persons, were given membership in the society, by the administrator. On 28.03.2015, a new elected committee came into office. Subsequently, on 16.04.2017, the committee was superseded and a part-time administrator was appointed. Exts.P1 and P2 notices dated 18.03.2020 have been issued by the part-time administrator observing, wrongful induction and grant of A-Class membership by the former administrator in office and deciding to cancel such memberships. The names and details of such persons does not find a place in the notice, but it is stated to have been published at the head office and branches of the Bank(society), and the office of the Assistant Registrar(General). As per the notice, explanations/objections are called for, to be submitted within 10 days from the date of notice. The notice was published in Mathrubhumi and Desabhimani dailies, as per Ext.P1 and P2. 4. The challenge against Exts.P1 and P2 notices are threefold; (i) The notice calling for objections/personal hearing need to be issued personally to the members sought to be removed and not by a general paper publication; (ii) Rule 16(3) under which the steps have presently been taken provides for removal of an ineligible person from membership and not with regard to induction as a member by a person without authority; (iii) Members inducted by the administrator were not granted voting rights; they were granted membership only to avail the services of the society. They were admitted to full membership by the subsequently elected managing committee. Hence they cannot be removed from membership. 5. Before I proceed to discuss on the merits of the contentions, I consider it profitable to extract Rule 16 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. “16. They were admitted to full membership by the subsequently elected managing committee. Hence they cannot be removed from membership. 5. Before I proceed to discuss on the merits of the contentions, I consider it profitable to extract Rule 16 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. “16. Conditions to be complied with for admission for membership.- (1) No person shall be admitted as a member of a society unless- (a) he has applied in writing in the form if any laid down by the society; (b) his application is approved by the committee of the society; (c) he has fulfilled all other conditions laid down in the Act, Rules and Bye-laws; (d) in the case of other societies or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not, and any statutory or non-statutory Board, approved by the Government, Committee or Corporation constituted for the development of any industry the application for membership shall be accompanied by a resolution authorising it to apply for such membership. (2) No person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a Co-operative Society, if he,- (a) has not attained the age of 18 years; (b) is not a resident of or does not own or possess land within the area of operation of the society, provided that this clause shall not apply in the case of a society formed exclusively for the students of any School or College; (c) has applied to be adjudicated as an insolvent or is an undischarged insolvent; (d) has been sentenced for any offence, other than an offence of a political character or an offence not involving moral turpitude and a period of five years has not elapsed from the date of expiry of the sentence; or (e) is a paid employee of the Society or of its financing Bank or of any society for which it is the financing Bank, provided that this restriction shall not apply to Co-operative Workshops, Societies for the employees of Financing Banks, and Societies formed for benefit of actual workers; (f) has been surcharged under S.68 and a period of 3 years has not elapsed since the payment of money or restoration of property as directed in the said order of surcharge. (g) xxx (h) has been expelled under sub-section (1) of section 7 and a period of one year has not elapsed from the date of such expulsion. (g) xxx (h) has been expelled under sub-section (1) of section 7 and a period of one year has not elapsed from the date of such expulsion. (3) Where a person already admitted to membership is seen to have been ineligible for membership at the time he was so admitted as a member or if he subsequently becomes in eligible for membership the Committee of the Society may remove the person from membership after giving him an opportunity for making his representation if any, and the person concerned shall thereupon cease to be a member of the society. (4) Where a member of a society becomes ineligible to continue as such, the registrar may of his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or by the financing Bank, by an order in writing declare that he has ceased to be a member of the society from the date of his order. The Registrar shall give such person an opportunity to state his objection, if any, to the proposed action and if the person wishes to be heard, he shall be given an opportunity to be heard before passing an order as aforesaid.” 6. Membership in a society is a personal right. When the membership granted to a person is sought to be revoked, in terms of Rule 16(3), he has a right to be heard. Therefore, he must be put on notice regarding the proposed removal. The mere publication of a notice in a news paper, with respect to a number of persons and without even mentioning the name of the person whose membership is sought to be cancelled, will not serve the purpose sought to be achieved namely, putting on notice the person whose membership is sought to be withdrawn, and is not proper notice. It is necessary that individual notice be given. Incidentally it is noticed that, Section 104 of the Act provides for service of notices under the Act to be effected by registered post. Mere publication of the notice in news paper does not confirm to the requirements and cannot be a substitute for a personal notice, especially when, the membership of a person is sought to be cancelled. Therefore I hold that, Exts.P1 and P2 notices does not satisfy the requirement of law. 7. Rule 16(1) stipulates the conditions for admission to membership. Mere publication of the notice in news paper does not confirm to the requirements and cannot be a substitute for a personal notice, especially when, the membership of a person is sought to be cancelled. Therefore I hold that, Exts.P1 and P2 notices does not satisfy the requirement of law. 7. Rule 16(1) stipulates the conditions for admission to membership. Rule 16(2) enumerates the eligibility of a person to be a member. Rules 16(3) and (4) provide for removal of a person from membership. Noticeably, Rules 3 and 4 provide for removal from membership on the ground of “ineligibility”. In Exts.P1 and P2 notices, the ground stated for removal from membership is, the illegal admission to membership by a part-time administrator. In other words, membership is sought to be cancelled on the ground of, grant of membership by an authority who was not competent to do so. Membership is not sought to be revoked for violation of any of the eligibility criterion stipulated in Rule 16(2). Removal from membership not being on the ground of “ineligibility” of a person, Rule 16(3) has no application. The present steps initiated under Rule 16(3), for removal from membership, are unsustainable. Exts.P1 and P2 notices are bad on that ground also. 8. Exts.P1 and P2 notices proceed on the assumption that “A-class membership”(full membership) was given by the administrator to 4462 persons. According to the petitioners, the membership granted was only for availing the services of the society and without any voting right, which is permissible under law. That an administrator though cannot admit members with full rights, can grant limited membership to avail the services of the society, is well accepted. No materials are placed before this Court by either side, to ascertain the nature of membership given. Though it is contended that the subsequently elected managing committee admitted them to full membership, materials regarding the same are also not brought on record. 9. Be that as it may, on the finding that the notices in the nature of Exts.P1 and P2 do not satisfy the requirement of law and that individual notices are to be issued to the members whose membership is proposed to be revoked, and on the finding that proceedings under Rule 16(3) does not lie since ineligibility in terms of Rule 16(2) is not alleged, Exts.P1 and P2 notices are hereby quashed. The proceedings for removal from membership of the persons alleged to be inducted by an incompetent authority, initiated under Rule 16(3), under and as mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 are set aside. However, this shall be without prejudice to the right of the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed as above.