ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief:

A) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31/10/2025 bearing No.GRL/A/Aa-Ne/CR- 138/2025-26 issued by the 4^th respondent vide Annexure-F in the interest of justice and equity and etc.,

B) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the fact and circumstances of the case and in the aid main relief sought for.

2. This Court, owing to the submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, on 06.11.2025 granted an interim order, observing that if the Administrator had not taken charge as on the date of grant of interim order, he shall not be permitted to take charge.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the Administrator has already assumed charge and therefore the interim order, insofar as not taking charge got divulged.

4. In the interregnum, it transpires that the term of the petitioner expired on 04.11.2025. Therefore, if the petitioner’s contention is accepted and the order appointing Administrator is set aside, it would amount to reviving an illegal order, as the Managing Committee, whose terms has expired in law, has no right to continue even for the purpose of conducting of elections. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.226145 of 2020 along with connected matters dated 16.10.2020, wherein the Court has held as follows:

“10. After carefully considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate, in the opinion of this Court, the following questions arise for consideration:

1. Whether, the petitioners have locus standi to challenge the appointment of an administrator?

2. Whether Part-IXB is still a part of the Constitution of India in view of the Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Rajendra N. Shah’s case (supra) and in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Kusum Ingots’ case (supra)?

3. Whether Section 28-A(5) of the Act of 1959 impairs the autonomy of a Co-operative Society conferred on it under Article 243-ZI and whether it violates the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India? Whether Sections 28-A(5) and 28-B of the Act of 1959 are unconstitutional?

4. When the non-conduct of elections to elect members of a Board is a condition precedent for appointment of an Administrator under Section 28-A(5) of the Act of 1959 and when the petitioners had all complied with their responsibility to hold elections, could the Government appoint an administrator on the ground that elections could not be held due to the Covid-19 pandemic? Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was just to appoint an administrator while the Government itself had exempted the compliance of Section 39A of the Act of 1959? Does this amount to approbate and reprobate?

5. Whether, there is no time fixed for holding elections to the members of the Board of a Co-operative Society under Section 39-A of the Act of 1959 and therefore Section 28- A(5) cannot be invoked for appointment of an administrator ?

6. Whether, the term of the elected members of the Board of a co-operative society extends till new members of the Board are elected in view of the words “Subject to the provisions of Sections 29A and 39A” and “save as otherwise”found in Section 28-A(4) of the Act of 1959?

7. Whether, the words “subject to the provisions of Sections 29A and 39A” and “save as otherwise” found in Section 28-A(4) have any purpose or are they inconsistent with Part IX-B of the Constitution of India and if yes, whether the said words are to be read down?

8. Whether, the petitioners are discriminated vis-à-vis the members of the Board of Sugar Co-operative Societies?

32. Question No.4: In so far as the present case is concerned, it is clear from a reading of the impugned order dated 14-07-2020 that the reason for appointing an administrator was the non-conduct of election