ANNARAO DEVARAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting question of law has been raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions. The undisputed facts are that the petitioners herein were selected as president of co-operative society at a time when the period of office was three years. The election took place sometime in 1997. Subsequent thereto, the act was amended by the government with effect from 15-8-1998. When the amendment was made, there was substantial changes brought about, in that, the period of the committee was enhanced from three years to five years. Section 28-a, sub-section (4) provided in this manner:

(2.) THAT is to say, in regard to the committee in office of the co-operative society elected prior to 15-8-1998, the status quo was allowed to be retained as it is. The stress placed on the expression the "co-operative year" in the proviso to Section 28-a (4), was keeping in mind the judgment of this court in t. b. guddalli v registrar of co-operative societies in karnataka, Bangalore and others, wherein this court ruled that 'year' to mean "co-operative year" which commences with the first April every year. Further, Section 29-f was amended whereby sub-section (5) was introduced providing that any elected president, vice-president, chairperson or vice-chairperson, shall hold office for a term of two and a half years. According to Mr. Jayakumar patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, the direct effect is the enhancement of the term of president, etc. , etc. , that stood enlarged from one year to two and a half years. it is contended by him that on the amendment of the statute, introduction of sub-section (5) to Section 29-f, exhibited an intention to the contrary, the result was the term automatically stood enlarged to two and a half years.

(3.) WHEREAS, Mr. Raikote, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that this enlargement of period is confined to such of those officers elected after coming into force of the amending act and inducted into office under the amended act. He submits that an interpretation to the effect that the period of enlargement would be affecting the existing office bearers automatically mean giving retrospective operation to the statute contemplated in this behalf. Learned government pleader appearing for the 4th respondent also supports this contention and submits that unless there is an express provision of granting retrospective operation to the statute, it cannot be read into Section that all elections held prior to the amending act would be governed by the new provision.