The term of a cooperative society's managing committee cannot be extended beyond its statutory period despite external delays affecting elections.

1The appellant - Board of Directors of the Kottappady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., No. E-125-represented by is President - is the petitioner in O. P. No. 7473 of 1994.

2 The present Board of Directors of the Kottappady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. No. E-155 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) was elected on 12-7-1992. The Board of Directors took charge on 14-7-1992. As per Clause.35 of the by laws of the Bank, the term of office of the managing committee is for a period of two years from the data of election. Therefore the term of office of the present Board of Directors of the Bank was due to expire on dt. 11-7-1994.

3 A special general body meeting of the Bank held on 14-3-1993 amended Clause.35 of the bye laws of the Bank stipulating the term of the Board of Directors as three years instead of two years. Even though the amendment of the bye laws was forwarded to the 1st respondent, Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ernakulam, for registration, the 1st respondent refused to register the amendment on the ground that the general body meeting was convened without giving seven clear days notice as prescribed in the bye laws. Consequently the amendment to Clause.35 of the bye laws has not taken effect.

4 The Board of Directors of the Bank as per resolution dated 22-4-1994 resolved to conduct election to the Board of Directors of the Bank on 10-7-1994 and requested the 2nd respondent to appoint a returning officer for conducting the election. Since the 2nd respondent did not pass orders on the request to appoint a returning officer the Board of Directors of the Bank filed O. P. No. 6890 of 1994 praying for a direction to the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General) Kothamangalam to appoint a returning officer. While the said Original Petition was pending, the 2nd respondent Assistant Registrar as per his letter No. 58/94 dated 23-5-1994 (Ext. P1 in O. P. No. 7473 of 1994) rejected the request of the Board of Directors to appoint a returning officer for conducting election on 10-7-1994, Thereupon the Board of Directors of the Bank filed O. P. No. 7473 of 1994 praying to quash Ext. P1 letter of the 2nd respondent and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint a returning officer for holding the election on 10-7-1994. There was a further prayer for a direction to the 1st respondent to allow the committee to continue in office till the election was held.

5 O. P. No. 7473 of 1994 was disposed of along with O. P. Nos. 6890/94, 7172/94 and 7238/94 as per common judgment dated 7-7-1994.

6 As per the above mentioned common judgment dated 7-7-1994 the learned single Judge held that the refusal of the Assistant Registrar to appoint a returning officer as per Ext. P1 was unsustainable. Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to ensure that election to the managing committee of the Bank is held and results declared on or before September 24, 1994. However the learned single Judge refused to grant the request of the petitioner in O. P. No. 7473 of 1994 to permit the existing managing committee to continue in office till the election is held. The learned single Judge held that the managing committee have no title to continue in office after July 12, 1994.

7 The petitioner in O. P. No. 7473 of 1994 has filed this Writ Appeal challenging the above mentioned common judgment dated 7-7-1994 only to the extent the learned single Judge refused to grant the request of the petitioner (appellant) to allow the existing managing committee to continue in office till the election is held.

8 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the managing committee of the Bank bad taken all steps for conducting the election before its term expired; but the respondents deliberately tried to delay the election. According to the learned counsel, the election could not be held before the term of the managing committee expired only because the 2nd respondent without valid or sufficient reasons, refused to appoint a returning officer. It