9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the committee shall be 5 co-operative years is only prospective in nature and it has no retrospective operation. The appellants are the Board of members of the fourth respondent-society. It is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). They were declared as elected members of the Board of the 4th respondent in the election held on 12-6-2009. The tenure of the Committee of Co-operative Society as per the provisions of Section 28A(4) prior to amendment was as under: 28-A. (4) Subject to the provisions of Sections 29A and 39A, the term of office of the members of the committee shall be five co-operative years and they shall be deemed to have v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontended that the attempt on the part of the authorities to give effect to the said provision as being prospective in nature is illegal and, therefore, they want the entire election process to be quashed. However, the said contention did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. He has held that the amendment is prospective in nature and it will not enure to the benefit of the petitioners-appellants and, therefore, he dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeals are filed. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that, the amendment is by way of substitution. Once the amendment is by way of substitution, in law, the substituted provisions are deemed to be on the statute book on the day the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words, which is to be followed by the Courts. However, if such an express provision is not there in the amendment, it does not necessarily mean that it has to be retrospective in nature. In order to decide whether such an amendment in the absence of express words is prospective or retrospective in nature, the Court can look into the scheme of the amendment, the object sought to be achieved, the mischief sought to be prevented and then by interpretative process can declare whether the said amendment is prospective or retrospective. On the pretext that it is a case of substitution the effect cannot be given to the substituted provision mechanically from the date of the statute itself. 7. If we look at the case on hand in this background, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenure is to be computed from the day he is elected and not from the commencement of the co-operative year. If we look into this historical background in which the Act has undergone amendment from time to time, it is clear the object is to give a definite tenure of 5 years to an elected person. On the day the appellants contested the elections and were elected, this was not the law. Therefore, when they were voted to power, it was clear that their tenure would come to an end on 31-3-2014. It was definite. The voter who voted them had no intention of giving them any extended term as sought to be made by way of an amendment today. The power to hold the post does not flow from the statutory provision. It flows from the ballot. The ballot is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
