JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Petitioner was a member of the Chatrapur Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited (hereafter called the 'Bank') and was elected to the Managing Committee of the Bank on 2-3-1969. He resigned therefrom on 19-8-1971. In November, 1971, the Managing Committee was superseded before completion of the term in exercise of the powers u/s 32 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act of 1962 (hereafter called the 'Act') and an Administrator was appointed. The administration of the Bank vested in the Administrator until 25-4-1973. Petitioner was elected to the Managing Committee as an elector from the non-borrowing constituency and assumed office as a Director of the Bank with effect from 26.4.1973. He also came to be elected as the President of the Bank. Fresh election was scheduled to be held in December, 1976. Nomination were called for by the Election Officer of the Bank and the objections to the nominations were fixed to be heard on 26.12.1976. Petitioner submitted his nomination paper from the non-borrowing constituency. Objection was raised against Petitioner's nomination paper on the ground that he had completed two consecutive terms as member of the Managing Committee and had, therefore, become ineligible for be selected again in terms of Section 28(4)(a) of the Act. The objection was upheld and Petitioner's nomination paper was rejected. On appeal, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Berhampur, (opposite party No. 2) reversed the decision and found that Petitioner had not completed two consecutive terms and, therefore, had not become ineligible for contesting the election of 1976. Opposite party No. 7 carried a revision to the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies (opposite patty No. 3) and the Revisional Authority reversed the appellate order and restored the original order of rejection of the nomination paper. Petitioner carried a further revision to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (opposite party no 4) and having lost before him, came before the State Government and these authorities also upheld the decision of the Additional Registrar. This writ application assails the rejection of the nomination paper of the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner carried a further revision to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (opposite party no 4) and having lost before him, came before the State Government and these authorities also upheld the decision of the Additional Registrar. This writ application assails the rejection of the nomination paper of the Petitioner. 2. Section 28(4)(a) of the Act provides: No individual shall whether by himself or as a representative of society, be eligible to become a member or president of the Committee of any society assisted by the State or Central Government in any of the forms specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 31 or of any Central Society, Apex Society or Co-operative Bank if he- (a) has completed two consecutive terms as member of the Committee; or xx xx xx The question for consideration is as to whether on the facts already indicated Petitioner had been a member of the Managing Committee for two consecutive terms. Petitioner was first elected to the Managing Committee on 2-3-1969 and resigned therefrom on 10-8-1971. Between November, 1971 and April, 1973, the Administrator was in charge of the Bank as the Managing Committee had been superseded. Petitioner got elected to the Committee again in 1973 and continued upto 1976. In these premises, the question is whether when election became due in 1976 Petitioner had already been on the Committee for two consecutive terms. The statutory authorities had taken the view that Petitioner incurred the disqualification as contemplated u/s 28(4)(a) of the Act relying upon the decisions of this Court, viz., Madan Mohan Pani v. State of Orissa 1971 (1) C.W.R. 332, Gadadhar Das v. Rajkishore Misra 1971 (2) C.W.R. 621. In Pani's case 1971 (1) C.W.R. 332, the learned Chief Just Ice indicated: The word 'consecutive' has the following meanings more or less in all the dictionaries. Those meanings are (i) followmg in a train, (ii) succeeding one another in a regular order, and (iii) uninterrupted in course or succession. Apparently, the idea is that vested interests will not be allowed to grow in the elective machineries at the lowest run of organisations for self-government. Even giving a literal meaning to the proviso it seems clear that two terms will not be taken to be consecutive only if another term intervenes between those two terms. Apparently, the idea is that vested interests will not be allowed to grow in the elective machineries at the lowest run of organisations for self-government. Even giving a literal meaning to the proviso it seems clear that two terms will not be taken to be consecutive only if another term intervenes between those two terms. The interregnum wherein an official functions as Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti is not a term and would not break the construction. The word 'consecucutive' must be construed in the context of the concept of word the 'term', as defined in Section 46-C, during which in elective Chairman functions. We do not find any justification to bring the concept indicated in the reported decision to the facts of the present case. Admittedly the word "term" has no definition in the Act. On the other hand, the period during which the administration vests in an non-elective body has also been referred to as a term. Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act provides: The Committee or Administrators or the society shall, at the expiry of its or their term of office, arrange for the constitution of a new Committee in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. The period during which the Administrator is in charge has thus been described in Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act as a term. "Term" in Section 28(4)(a) and in Section 32(3) of the Act would ordinarily have the same meaning unless there be any indication to the contrary in the context. Want of a definition of a term and reference to the period during which the society was in the management of an Administrator as a term would clearly indicate that the principle - laid down in the two reported decisions would have no application to the present case. On the other hand, the two year period during which an Administrator was in charge of the Bank being itself a term, Petitioner's continuing on the Managing Committee for sometime prior to the supersession and for a period after the supersession was over would definitely be intervened by a term and there cannot be consecution. Strong reliance was placed by Counsel for - the Petitioner on a Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shankarrao Ramchandrarao Phate and Another Vs. Chatrapal Anandrao Kedar and Others. Strong reliance was placed by Counsel for - the Petitioner on a Bench decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Shankarrao Ramchandrarao Phate and Another Vs. Chatrapal Anandrao Kedar and Others. A similar provision in the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act was being construed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court where the term had been interpreted differently. In view of the two Bench decisions it may be difficult for us to accept the Bombay view. But for the reasons we have already indicated, the ratio of the two reported' decisions would not apply to the facts of the present case and on a proper construction of the provisions contained in the Act we must hold that Petitioner did not hold office for two consecutive terms and did not entail the disqualification contemplated u/s 28(4)(a) of the Act. Petitioner's nomination paper had been wrongly rejected. 3. In passing order we may take notice of the position that by an Ordinance the disqualification in question had been removed but the Ordinance itself had not become the law on account of the same having not become an Act of the Legislature though the Legislature met after the Ordinance came into the statute book. 4. The writ application is bound to succeed. We would accordingly quash the various orders of the statutory authorities rejecting the nomination paper of the Petitioner and hold that Petitioner was not disqualified and his nomination paper was not liable to be rejected. 5. The writ application succeeds with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees two hundred to be recovered from the departmental authorities including the Bank on one side and the objectors to the nomination paper on the other on equal share. N.K. Das, J. 6. I agree. Final Result : Allowed