N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THESE four matters involving common question of interpretation of sec. 164 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity can be conveniently dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment and we are happy to note that Mr. Joshi the learned counsel appearing for the four petitioners in the four matters and Mr. M. I. Hawa appearing for the State Government and the Registrar common respondents in four matters have agreed to this common treatment. ( 2 ) IN order to understand the controversies more or less common in these four matters a few facts are required to be noted few precision and charity. Various co-operative societies are existing in Bhavnagar District. In respect of these various societies liquidation proceedings had come to be initiated by the Registrar under sec. 107 of the Act because he was of the opinion that those societies ought to be wound up Interim orders were passed and final orders were also passed with the result that the Bhavnagar District Co-operative Bank Limited who appears to be a substantial creditor of these co-operative societies had come to be appointed as the liquidator under sec. 108 of the Act. Under sec. 114 of the Act the winding up proceedings of a society are to are closed within are years from the date of the order of winding up unless the period was extended by the Registrar. All the case of various societies which are involved it these four proceedings before us the period had come to be extended to the maximum limit namely foul years in the aggregate. The Bhavnagar District Co-operative Bank limited the Liquidator however could not conclude its proceedings of winding up and in one case had read a move through the District Registrar and the move was directed to the State Government to exercise its power under sec. 161 of the Act. In the Special Civil Application No. 2645 of 1981 there is a prayer sought for to the effect that the State Government be directed to exercise the powers under sec. 161 of the Act and the period be extended 50 as to enable this Co-operative Bank to conclude the liquidation proceedings to its satisfaction. In the Special Civil. In the Special Civil Application No. 2645 of 1981 there is a prayer sought for to the effect that the State Government be directed to exercise the powers under sec. 161 of the Act and the period be extended 50 as to enable this Co-operative Bank to conclude the liquidation proceedings to its satisfaction. In the Special Civil. Application No. 879 of 1989 also there is such a prayer preceded by the prayer for quashing of the order annexure-A which was passed joy the State Government rejecting the applications in revision against the Registrars attempt not to extend the period beyond a period of three years or four years etc. By the time the Government came to handle this matter seven years period was already over. The Government even on merits rejected the revision application upholding the decision of the District Registrar Hence in this special civil application also the prayer is that the order annexure-A passed by the Government be set aside and the Government be called to upon to extend the period in exercise of the alleged powers under sec. 161 of the Act. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 283 of 1981 is against the summary rejection of the very District Co-operative Banks petition No. 1617 of 1980 and the prayer an the petition was that the State Government should be directed to pass an order under sec. 161 of the Act giving exemption to this District Co-operative Bank from the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 114 of the Act and the ultimate idea was to get the period extended till the winding up proceeding were fully over. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 194 of 1984 is directed against the order of our brother G. T. Nanavati J. in he Special Civil Application No. 4108 of 1983 which was a petition filed for setting aside the order annexure-G and directing the Registrar to forward the proposal immediately to the State Government and a direction to the State Government to pass appropriate orders about extension of the period beyond seven years or three years whatever it is. ( 3 ) THE above synopsis would show that to all intents and purposes the player that is sought for before us is that we should direct the State Government to exercise its powers under sec. ( 3 ) THE above synopsis would show that to all intents and purposes the player that is sought for before us is that we should direct the State Government to exercise its powers under sec. 161 the Act so that the period of three years or the period upto seven years is still extended so that the applicant District Co-operative Bank exercises its powers as a liquidator and completes the liquidation proceedings because it appears to be a substantial creditor of these various co-operative societies concerned. ( 4 ) SEC. 161 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 is reproduced below for ready reference :"161 The State Government may be general or special order to be published in the Official Gazette exempt any society or class of societies from any of the provisions of this Act or may direct that such provisions shall apply to such society or class of societies with such modifications not affecting the substance thereof as may be specified in the order : provided that no order to the prejudice of any society shall be passed without an opportunity being given to such society to represent its case. Mr. Joshi the learned counsel who argued for the District Co-operative Bank common petitioner of these four matters. urged that sec. 161 should be so interpreted as to achieve the purpose underlying the objective of advancing the co-operative movement and curbing the contrary object when a co-operative society is not able to discharge its functions and achieve the objectives underlying the co-operative working. We find that the power to exempt or the power to direct which may include the provisions of sec. 114 also shall apply to such societies with such modifications not affecting the substance thereof as may be specified in the order Sec. 114 has been couched by the legislature in very emphatic terms. Sec. 114 requires that winding up proceedings of a society shall be closed within three years from the date of the order of the winding up. The anxiety of the legislature is self-evident. If the society can be revived it may be revived in reasonable time. If the society cannot be reconstituted or revived it must obliterate itself from the field or scene so that further obligations or complications do not arise. The anxiety of the legislature is self-evident. If the society can be revived it may be revived in reasonable time. If the society cannot be reconstituted or revived it must obliterate itself from the field or scene so that further obligations or complications do not arise. That is why the legislatures keenness to see that the winding up proceedings are concluded or closed within a period of three years from the date of the order of the winding up. The legislature however is not oblivious of the day-to-day difficulties and that is why the proviso appended to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 114 provides that the Registrar may extend the period in the aggregate of four years. But here again the legislatures anxiety is to see that this aggregate period of four years which is permissible as the maximum period is not to be granted at a stretch but not more than one years period is to be granted at a stretch the idea being that he Registrar should closely watch those proceedings and should try to see that if the winding up proceedings can be concluded in four years no extension is given. So that substance of sec. 114 (1) is that the winding up proceedings under any circumstance cannot go beyond a period of seven years. ( 5 ) SEC. 161 is a general section not limited to sec. 114 (1 ). Let us assume for the sake of argument that sec. 114 (1) is also contemplated to be covered by sec. 161. The moot question that would arise before us is whether such an exemption can be granted or a direction can be issued to apply a section with modification retroactively. To us it appears clear that here the seven years period is over and the resultant effects automatically follow and the powers under sec. 161 assuming that they are there cannot be exercised. It is the rule of interpretation that legislative provisions are prospective in operation and not retroactive. The science of interpretation is not oblivious of the legislatures power to give retroactive authority. But this retroactive operation of any law or retroactive exercise of any statutory power conferred by the law is to be inferred only when there is express provision to that effect or if there is a necessary application permissible in the facts and circumstances of a particular provision or a particular power. But this retroactive operation of any law or retroactive exercise of any statutory power conferred by the law is to be inferred only when there is express provision to that effect or if there is a necessary application permissible in the facts and circumstances of a particular provision or a particular power. Reading sec. 161 of the Act and particularly noting the legislatures anxiety that the substance of any provision is not to be adversely affected. we would say that the powers of extending the period under sec. 114 (1 ). even if presumably existing there cannot be so exercised as to adversely affect the real thrust of the provisions of sec. 114 of the Act. The said section in very clear and unambiguous language provides that the winding up proceedings of a society are to be closed within three years from the date of the order or within the extended period which cannot in aggregate exceed seven years in all. There is a legal fiction contained in the proviso appended to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 114 of the Act. and it is to the effect that immediately after the expiry of seven years from the date of the order on the winding up of the society the liquidation proceedings shall stand terminated and the Registrar shall pass an order terminating the liquidation proceedings. When the legislatures intent is explained in very clear terms that auxiliary verb shall would stare in our face it is too much to say that the powers under sec. 161 qua sec. 114 can be exercised retroactively. The fact that the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act is a sort of a welfare legislation would not mend the matter in any way. Ultimately it is question of interpretation of a particular legislative text or the power under that text. The power delegated to the authority by the legislature cannot he exercised with retrospective effect. This is the view accepted by our brother Ahmadi J. in his judgment in the Special Civil Application No. 1311 of 1978 decided by him on 25/06/1985 following the ratio of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of the Collective Farming Society Ltd. and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 1974 Madhya Pradesh 59 where the Madhya Pradesh High Court was dealing with sec. 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. 91 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. pari materia with sec. 161 of our Act. ( 6 ) MR. Joshi however urged that the petitioner Bank had in some cases moved the Government for exercise of the power well within the time i. e before the expiry of the period of seven years. This can hardly mend the matter. When the legislative intent is clear and cogent and unequivocal the delay in deciding the matter by the State Government may be depricated but cannot be condoned. That delay cannot go to the benefit of the applicant who missed the bus. It is no doubt true that insistence of the District Registrar or the Government that any such proposal for extension of time must pass through the District Registrar cannot be sustained for want of any statutory rule in that regard. We therefore would certainly agree with Mr. Joshi that the District Registrar cannot insist that any such move for extension of period must pass through the District Registrars hands. ( 7 ) MR. Joshis next argument was that till there was cancellation of registration of a co-operative society its juristic existence continues. He in this connection invited our pointed attention to sec. 20 of the Act. We agree wit Mr. Joshi in this regard. A society once registered is a body corporate and a the registration of a society is existent its life also continues. It is because of this that sec. 20 (1) of the Act provides certain contingencies in which a Registrar who has registered the society can cancel the registration and sub-sec. (3) very categorically was down that a society firm the day of such order of cancellation is to he deemed to have been dissolved and it would cease to exist as a corporate body. However this has no relevance with the matters on hand what would happen to the society ordered to be wound up but the winding up proceedings are not concluded as provided by see. 114 of the Act is not a matter of us to deal with at this stage. All we are concerned with is that the winding up proceedings of the society on the expiry of that period shall be closed and as and when the Registrar passes any further order the matter can be dealt with at the proper stage. 114 of the Act is not a matter of us to deal with at this stage. All we are concerned with is that the winding up proceedings of the society on the expiry of that period shall be closed and as and when the Registrar passes any further order the matter can be dealt with at the proper stage. ( 8 ) THE result is that the two special civil applications stand rejected an the two letters patent appeals stand dismissed. In the two special civil applications rule accordingly stands discharged. There will be no order as to costs both in the special civil applications and in the letters patent appeals. Petitions and L. P. A. dismissed. .