SHANKARAPPA Vs. THE COOPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have sought for the following relief:

(2.) HEARD , the arguments of Shri Anocp Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Shri K.S.Patil, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Notice to R3 and R4 is not issued, since writ petitions are being dismissed at the stage of admission itself for the following reasons.

(3.) AS such, he prays for setting aside the impugned notifications. He would draw sustenance from above referred judgments to contend that when a substitution of an enactment takes place, in effect it would mean that existing provision is substituted to that of the new provision or in other words substituted provision is deemed to be in the statute from the day said enactment or Section has come into force i.e., day one itself. As such, relying upon the above judgments, he contends that in the instance case, the words "five Co -operative years" found in Section 28 -A(4) having been substituted with "five years from the date of election" would apply or would be applicable to all such Directors or elected representatives from the date when such substitution took place i.e., i 1.02.2013 and in view of the fact that term of the Board of Directors elected to 4th respondent - Society namely that of petitioners having not come to an end as on 11.02.2013, i.e , the date on which Act 3/2013 came into force, substituted provision would be applicable and it has to be held that such substituted provision being there in the statute book from day one.