JUDGMENT : Amit Rawal, J. This order shall dispose of four (4) matters; W.A No.437 of 2025 [P.A Abraham and others v. B.N Shyamkumar and Others] arising out of an interim order dated 5.2.2025 in WP(C) No.2902 of 2025, WP(C) No.2902 of 2025 [B.N Shyamkumar v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General)] filed by the President of the Society challenging the notice Ext.P2 dated 18.1.2025 whereby the Joint Registrar had appointed an Officer to consider the resolution dated 8.1.2025 passed by the members of the Board of Directors expressing no-confidence motion against the President, WP(C) No.1307 of 2025 [P.A Abraham and Others v. Joint Registrar of Co- operative Societies and Others] for seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Joint Registrar to take further steps for appointing a Presiding officer or fixing a date for consideration of no-confidence motion, WP(C) No.3398 of 2025 [Rehna v. and another v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies(General) and Others] for quashing notice issued by the Joint Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram dated 16.1.2025 taking action of disqualification of the petitioner on the basis of the receipt of the complaint of Sri.Santhosh Kumar being a defaulter as per the provisions of Rule 44 (1) (c) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. 2. The crux of the controversy in all these matters is common and therefore are being disposed of by a common judgment. The controversy involved is that out of 13 members, 1/3 rd member ie., 7 had on 8.1.2025 passed a resolution of no- confidence motion against the President Sri.B.N Shyamkumar, writ petitioner in WP(C) No.2902 of 2025. On receipt of the notice, the President submitted an application to the Joint Registrar that two of the members have been disqualified being in default and regarding two members have submitted resignation on 7.1.2025. 3. On the receipt of the aforementioned no-confidence motion and as well as the letter submitted by the respondent, the then President, that the resolution of no-confidence was lacking full quorum on account of two ambiguities ie., disqualification and default, therefore could not be acted upon, the Joint Registrar General vide order dated 16.1.2025 issued a notice to the members against whom the allegation of disqualification either on account of fault or of resignation, which according to the appellants in the writ appeal is fabricated. 4. 4. Simultaneously, after two days on 18.1.2025 vide order Ext.P2 in WP(C) No.2902 of 2025 had also issued a notice to the President appointing one officer to convene a meeting for discussing the issue of the no-confidence motion. 5. On perusal of the aforementioned facts, it is evident that two opposite steps have been taken; one in terms of the resolution dated 8.1.2025 expressing no-confidence motion against the President by appointing an Officer vide notice dated 18.1.2025, which is under stay in WP(C) No.2902 of 2025; another, for taking an action of disqualification on two aspects ie., the default and resolution. 6. In this view of the incongruous situation, the President had filed a writ petition No.2902 of 2025 seeking the stay of the notice dated 18.1.2025 which is under interim stay and another Writ petition No.1307 of 2025 for issuing a directions to the Joint Registrar to take action against the resolution as well as WP(C) No.3398 of 2025 challenging the notice dated 16.1.2025 of disqualification. Section 33 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 provides that whenever a resignation is submitted by the member, the date of submission would be considered as resignation. 7. A plea of fraud and fabrication has been taken on behalf of the persons who are a signatory to the no-confidence motion on the ground that the signatures are based upon not of their volition but based upon the fabrication to overcome the hurdle of no confidence motion. It cannot be believed that a person who had submitted a resignation on 7.1.2025, again participated in the proceedings on 8.1.2025 for taking no- confidence motion against the President of the Society. 8. Even the Joint Registrar, who is a quasi-judicial authority, does not know the nuances of the procedure and has adopted a dichotomous approach on one hand by taking steps for implementation of the no-confidence motion and on the other hand for disqualification on the ground of default of the arrears as well as resignation. 9. The learned Single Bench on the request of the appellants in the present appeal and the respondents in WP(C) No.2902 of 2025 for vacating the interim order dated 24.1.2025 staying the notice dated 18.1.2025 appointing the officer to conduct the proceedings for no-confidence motion, rejected the request and passed a detailed order which is under challenge before this Court. The operative part of the order reads thus: 4. The operative part of the order reads thus: 4. I have carefully gone through the records. In this case, even though the resignation letters submitted by some of the party respondents were seriously disputed by them, the fact remains that, there are resignation letters signed by the parties concerned. In this regard, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 4 to 9 , 11 and 12, the specific averment raised by the above respondents is that, the petitioner had obtained signed blank papers from the party respondents at the time of election of the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent on 23.01.2021. According to them, thereafter, they have fabricated resignation letters utilizing the blank papers. 5. Thus, the crucial question is regarding the genuineness of the resignation letters which contain the signatures of the parties concerned. As there are resignation letters on record, the question as to whether the said resignation letters were fabricated or not is a matter to be decided at the final hearing. Therefore, I am of the view that, the interim order already granted by this Court need not be vacated in view of the fact that, in the light of the said resignation letters, the party respondents are seized to be the members of the management committee with effect from the date of tendering of the said resignations. Therefore, permitting the convening of the meeting to consider the no confidence motion as proposed in Ext.P2, cannot be allowed as of now, as there is nothing to show that the petitioners are continuing as the members of the Managing Committee. They can be treated as the members of the Managing Committee only if the resignations are found to be invalid, which can only be decided at the time of final disposal. Therefore, the relief sought by the respondents to vacate the interim order is declined. 10. On perusal of the aforementioned order, it is evident that the court was of the opinion that until and unless the genuineness of the resignation letters is decided, there cannot be any further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 18.1.2025 appointing an Officer for implementation and taking a call on the resolution of no-confidence motion dated 8.1.2025. 10. On perusal of the aforementioned order, it is evident that the court was of the opinion that until and unless the genuineness of the resignation letters is decided, there cannot be any further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 18.1.2025 appointing an Officer for implementation and taking a call on the resolution of no-confidence motion dated 8.1.2025. The question posed before us is whether in such circumstances, adoption of the dichotomous approach by the Joint Registrar should this Court assume the role of an expert to examine the alleged fabrication of the resignation letters as well as the default proceedings, the answer was 'No'. It is settled law that the writ court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the role of the expert but has to take the assistance of an expert body competent to decide the issue. 11. Since it appears that the Joint Registrar does not have the deep knowledge regarding the initiation of proceedings and had been sailing in two boats, we deem it appropriate that the enquiry with regard to submission of the resignation letter, quorum of the no-confidence motion dated 8.1.2025 or default proceedings shall be examined by the Registrar Co-operative Society, Thiruvananthapuram for arriving at a just and equitable relief and find out whether no-confidence motion is genuine or otherwise suffers from the lack of quorum on account of resignation, not being fabricated or otherwise etc. Accordingly, we dispose of the present writ appeal as well as the writ petitions by issuing directions to the Registrar Co-operative Society to hold an enquiry in respect of the aforementioned allegation/cross allegation by the parties to the lis and decide the controversy after affording an opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.