K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) IN the sprawling and ever growing city of Bangalore, in addition to innumerable organisations that exist there is a co-operative society called 'the Mysore Provincial Silk Handloom weavers Society, Ltd. , Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Society) established and functioning under the provisions of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Kar. Act of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In accordance with the provisions of the Act and the byelaws of the Society, respondent No. 2 on 22. 3. 1976 was elected as the President of the Board of Management of society for a period of two years in the first instance. He is continuing as the President of the Society from 22. 3. 1976 uninterruptedly either havirg been elected as its President or continuing by other process, the details of which are not very necessary to notice. Unfortunately, for various reasons, the marration of vihich are not also very necessary to notice, elections to the Board of Management including the office of the President have not been held and are not likely to be held before March. 1983 and that respondent No. 2, though he had completed six years uninterrupted term on 21. 3. 1982. has continued to be the President of the Society in contravention of S. 29d of the Act. In that view, the petitioner, a member of the Society who had been elected to the Board of management and also as a Vice-President for some time, has moved this court on 15. 4. 1982 under Art. 226 of the Constitution to remove respondent no. 2 from holding the office of the president of the Society. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has asserted that the continuance of respondent No. 2 after 21. 3. 1982 is prohibited by S. 29d of the Act and that respondent No 1, the head of the department and the chief controlling authority under the act should have taken steps to remove respondent No. 2 from the office of the president from that date and since he has failed 1o perform his legal duty it is necessary for this Court to interfere with the matter. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 who has been duly served has remained absent and is unrepresented But, respondent No. 2 in resisting the petition, has urged that he could not work as a President for the period from 9. 2. 1979 to 9. 3. 1979 in view of leave of absence graned to him by the Board of Management in its resolution dated 7. 2. 1979 (Annexure. R1) and the same amounts to break in his continuity as President of the Societv On this premise respondent No. 2 has urged that S. 29d of the Act had no application. He has also urged that the petitioner, a director of the Society had no locus standi to challenge his continuance as President. Alternatively he has urged that the proper and legal remedy for the petitioner is to raise a dispute under S. 70 of the Act before the Registrar. Lastly, he has set out the steps taken by him to hold the elections, the orders made by Government from time to time postponing the elections and the imperative necessity to continue as the President of the Society. ( 4 ) BEFORE examining the merits of the case, it is more useful to notice and deal with some of the preliminary contentions urged by respondent No. 2 ( 5 ) AT the threshold, No. 2 has urged that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge his continuance as president of the Society. ( 6 ) AS a member of the Society and member of the Board of Director it is undoubtedly open to the petitioner to challenge the continuance of respondent No. 2. On the ratio of the latest ruling of the Supreme Court in S. P. Gupta v The President of India (1) the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the continuance of respondent No. 2 For these reasons, I reject this contention of respondent No. 2. ( 7 ) ANOTHER objection raised by respondent No. 2 is that it is open to the petitioner to raise a dispate under s. 70 of the Act before the Registrar on which ground this Court should decline to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction in His favour. ( 7 ) ANOTHER objection raised by respondent No. 2 is that it is open to the petitioner to raise a dispate under s. 70 of the Act before the Registrar on which ground this Court should decline to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction in His favour. ( 8 ) ASSUMING that the petitioner could raise a dispute under S. 70 of the Act, that does not really touch on the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the validity of the continuance of respondent No. 2, that too after issue of rule nisi in the case. In my opinion, this is not one of those cases in which this Court should drive the petitioner from pillar to post and thus delay the determination of the question. Hence. I reject this objection of respondent No. 2. ( 9 ) AS I have rejected both the preliminary objections urged by respondent No. 2 it is now necessary to examine the merits of the case. ( 10 ) SRI Mohandas N. Hegde contends that respondent No. 2 who was elected as President on 22. 3. 1976 and continued in that capacity ever since then without a break is disabled from continuing as President on the expiry of 6 years under S. 29d of the Act. In support of his contention Sri Hegde strongly relied on an unreported Division bench ruling of this Court in vyavaseya Seva Sahakara Sangha niyamitha Bonnikanahalli v. State of Karnataka (2) ( 11 ) SRI V. T. Raya Reddy, learned counsel for 'respondent No. 2 refuting the contention of Sri Hegue urged more than ground to justify the continuance of his client as Presdent of the Sepiety, that will be noticed and dealt by me in due course. ( 12 ) ON 22. 3. 1976 respondent No. 2 was elected as the President of the society and has been continuing in that capacity ever since then is not disputed by him. But, he has asserted that the leave of absence granted by the Board of Management from 9- 2-1979 to 9. 3. 1969 when he was out of station amounts to a break in his continuance as President of the Society. ( 13 ) THE leave of absence granted to respondent No. 2 on 7. 2. 1979 from 9. 2. 1979 to 9. 3. 1979 (Annexure-R1) reads thus :- when the Board of Management granted leave of absence, respondent no. 3. 1969 when he was out of station amounts to a break in his continuance as President of the Society. ( 13 ) THE leave of absence granted to respondent No. 2 on 7. 2. 1979 from 9. 2. 1979 to 9. 3. 1979 (Annexure-R1) reads thus :- when the Board of Management granted leave of absence, respondent no. 2 did not cease to be the President of the Society. By the leave of absence the status and continuance of respondent No. 2 as the President of the Society was in no way affected. On the other hand, the leave of absence expressly protected his status and continuance as President of the Society. On any principle, leave of absence cannot be construed as break in contihity. ( 14 ) SEC. 29d (1) of the Act introduced by the kar. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Kar. Act No. 39 of 1975) that came info force from Sept. 23, 1975 (vide notifi. No. RDC 322 CEA 75 dt. 23. 9. 1975) that is material for the case reads thus:-"29d. Disqualification for being a president, Vice-President. Managing Director, Treasurer or Secretary -- (1) No person shall be eligible for election or appointment or to continue as President, Vice-President, managing Director, Treasurer or secretary of a Co-operative Society for more than six Co-operative years: provided that persons who have completed or who complete the said period of six years on the date of coming into force of the Karnataka co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1975, shall be entitled to continue in office until elections are held for the first time after the said date. Explanation:-- For purpose of this sub-section, a person who ceases to be a President, President, managing Director, asurer or secretary within twelve months prior to the expiry of the six consecutive years, shall be deemed to have completed the period of six years. "in clear, unambiguous and emphatic terms S. 29d of the Act expressly prohibits a person to be eligible for election or appointment or to continue as President, Vice-President, Managing Director, Treasurer or Secretary of a Co-operative Society for more than six consecutive years. The persons holding the offices referred to therein for more than six consecutive years are made ineligible for election ox appointment or continuance, except those that are protected by the proviso to that section. The persons holding the offices referred to therein for more than six consecutive years are made ineligible for election ox appointment or continuance, except those that are protected by the proviso to that section. The provisio applies only to persons holding several offices on the day the amending Act came into force namely on 23. 9. 1975 but not to others. In all other cases the prohibition for being elected, appointed or continued is absolute and admits of no exception. So far as persons elected to the offices of a Society on and after 23. 9. 1975, their co. tinuance beyond a consecutive period of 6 years is absolutely prohibited and admits of no exception at all. ( 15 ) AS a rule negative terms are employed in a provision to make that provision peremptory or mandatory. The use of the word 'shall' in a proviso raises a presumption that that provision is peremptory or mandatory, though the same is not always decisive. S. 29d (1) of the Act, which commences with negative terms also employs the term 'shall. ' On the application of the above and all other relevant priciples and in the context, s. 29d (1) without any doubt is a peremptory or mandatory provision, the violation of which is neither permissible nor can be condoned by a Court on any ground. ( 16 ) IN Vyavasaya Seva Sahakar sangha's case the facts were these: one V. C. Shivappa had continued as the President of the appellant Society for more than six years. On the coming into force of S. 29d of the Act the competent officer under the Act directed him to vacate the office, the validity of which was challenged by the society before this Court and an. order of stay was obtained. On an application made by the respondents, the ex- parte stay was vacated, the correctness of which was again challenged by the society in a Writ Appeal before this court. In rejecting the said writ Appeal, a Divison Bench of this Court consisting of Sabhahit and Vithal Rao, jj observed thus:-"that being so, it becomes clear that if he has been already a president for more than 6 years, he cannot continue as such after the coming force of the present section in 1975. It is on record that there was an election earlier in 1977. It is on record that there was an election earlier in 1977. That being so, he cannot now continue as President after six years. It is not necessary that any authority should terminate his presidentship; the section states that ipso facto he shall cease to be a president. The section also states that he is not eligible for election for some period when once he completes the term of six years. That being so, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified in vacating the stay order issued inadvertently against the provisions of law. He has rightly said that he is not persuaded to perpetuate the illegality. There is no arguable point in this writ appeal. Hence, it is dismissed in limine. "this enunciation, though made at the stage of admission, 4s directly on the point and is also binding on me. ( 17 ) AA seen earlier, respondent No. 2 has been continuing in the office of president without any break from 22. 3. 1976 r for a period in excess of maximum period of 6 years provided by the Act and on the application of the above principles, it follows that his continuance is no longer permissible. Since respondent No. 1 as the chief Controlling Authority and the head of the Department has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him to remove respondent No. 2 it is necessary to direct him to forthwith remove respondent No. 2. ( 18 ) SRI Reddy urged that the continuance of respondent No. 2 who has aken all steps to hold elections but has sen prevented from holding elections, has become absolutely necessary and his removal would create a void. Sri reddy is right in his submission that respondent No. 2 had taken steps to hold elections but the same has been prevented by postponements ordered by Government. But, the postponement cannot enure to the benefit of respondent No. 2 to defy a mandatory provision. Any provision in the bye-laws of a Society canno be read as defeating a mandatory statutory provision made in the Act. On the removal of respondent No. 2 it is undoubtedly open to the members of the Board of Directors under bye law no. 29 of the Bye-laws of the Society to elect one of the members of the board of Directors as the President of the Society till elections are held. On the removal of respondent No. 2 it is undoubtedly open to the members of the Board of Directors under bye law no. 29 of the Bye-laws of the Society to elect one of the members of the board of Directors as the President of the Society till elections are held. An election of a President from among the members of the Board of Management can be held within a week at the highest. The removal of respondent no. 2 will not create a hiatus or endanger the working of the Society. For these reasons, I see no merit in this contention of Sri Reddy and I reject the same. ( 19 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I make the following orders and directions:- (A) I declare that respondent No. 2 who has completed six consecutive years as President of the Mysore provincial Silk Handloom Weavers co-operative Society Limited cannot continue as President of the eaid society. (B) I direct respondent No. 1 and the Society to take steps to fill up the office of the President in accordance with Bye-law No. 28 of the society. ( 20 ) RULE issued is made absolute. But, in the circumstances of the case, i direct the parties to bear their own costs. ( 21 ) LET copies 01 this order be communicated to respondent No. 1 and to the Mysore Provincial Silk Handloom weavers' Co-operative Society Limited bangalore-2 forthwith. --- *** --- .