JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the refusal to register the amendment to the bye-laws of the petitioner Society this writ petition has been filed. Ext.P5 order of rejection was affirmed in appeal under Ext.P9. 2. Registration of the amendment to the bye-laws was refused by the authorities for the reason that, the publication of the proposed amendment did not satisfy the requirements under Rule 9(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules and Circular No.25/2016 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. 3. I have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mable C. Kurian, the learned Government Pleader. 4. As per Rule 9(ii) of the Rules, if the Society has more than 500 members, intimation of the proposed amendment with the date, time, place and agenda of the General Body Meeting are to be published in two vernacular dailies having wide publication in the area of operation in addition to the publication at the other places as mentioned therein. Ext.P2 is the copy of the paper publication with regard to the proposed amendment. According to the respondents, the publication is defective for the reason that it contains only the proposed amendments and it does not contain the existing provisions of the bye-laws. Going by Rule 9(ii) and Circular No.25/2016, the publication should contain both the existing provisions as well as the proposed amendments. 5. According to the petitioner, the Rules and Circulars mandate publication only of the proposed amendment and not of the existing provisions of the bye laws. The relevant portion of Rule 9(ii) reads thus :- “9. Procedure Regarding Amendment of Bye-laws:—(1) xxxxx (ii) No such resolution shall be valid in the case of a society having not more than five hundred members, unless intimation of the amendment proposed has been given to the members of the society either in person and their full signature in token of having received the same has been obtained, or by registered post or speed post or such courier services approved by the High Court of Kerala/Government of Kerala and in other cases, it shall be sufficient if the date, time, place and agenda of such General Body Meeting with details of amendment proposed are published in two vernacular dailies having wide circulation in the area of operation of the society, in the notice board of the society at the head office and branches of the society, …………....” Circular No.25/2016 reads thus:- 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that Rule 9(ii) makes a distinction with regard to publication in the case of Societies having less than 500 members and those having more than 500 members. In the case of the former, the Rule prescribes intimation of “the amendment proposed” whereas in the case of the latter, the rule prescribes publication of “details of amendment proposed”. There is distinction between the two; the words “details of amendment proposed” in the latter, intend publication of the existing provision of the bye-law also, it is contended. 7. I am unable to subscribe to the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader. 8. All that the Rule requires is, intimation of the proposed amendment to the members of the Society. In Societies where the number of members are less than 500, personal intimation is sufficient and where the number is more than 500 the intimation is permitted to be made by paper publication. The distinction is only with regard to the mode of intimation. There is no reason to make any difference with regard to the contents of the notice/intimation. In both the cases, the purpose is to intimate the proposed amendment to the members. There is no reasoning in the contention that, when the number of members is more than 500 the intimation should contain the existing provisions of the bye-law along with the proposed amendment. 9. Circular No.25/2016 relied on by the respondents does not suggest any different interpretation or intention. All that the Circular states is that, some of the Societies have been publishing only the crux OTHER LANGUAGE of the proposed amendment, which is contrary to Rule 9(ii), and that the details of the proposed amendment are to be given in the publication. The details of the proposed amendment would only mean, the proposed amendments as such or in its entirety, and not a mere publication of the crux of the proposed amendment. 10. Therefore, on a proper understanding of Rule 9(ii) of the Rules and Circular No.25/2016, it could only be held that the intimation to the members with regard to the proposed amendment of the bye-laws of the Society, whether it be by personal service or by paper publication as the case may be, need only contain the proposed amendment in its entirety. Such intimation/publication need not contain the existing provision of the bye-law sought to be amended. Such intimation/publication need not contain the existing provision of the bye-law sought to be amended. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P5 and P9 orders are quashed. The second respondent is to pass fresh orders on Ext.P4 application for registration of the amended bye-laws dehors the reason given in Exts.P5 and P9. Let orders be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.