JUDGMENT 1. The short point involved in this case is whether the impugned Notification as contained in Memo No. 14524/2 dated 23.9.87/9.10.87 (Annexure 'F'), issued by the Respondent No.3 purportedly under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 is valid and legal. 2. The facts of the case, inter alia, are that the petitioners were Directions of Midnapore District Wholesale Consumers' Cooperative Society Ltd., namely, the Respondent No.6 and they were so elected at the Annual General Meeting of the said Society held on 19th December, 1982. When the said meeting was held and the petitioners were elected as the directors of the said society, the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 was in force. Under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the said Act, it was incumbent upon every Co-operative Society to hold the Annual General Meeting of the Society at least once in every co-operative year, inter alia, for the purpose of electing members of the Managing Committee, other than members Dominated under section 28 of the said Act, and such other officers as might be provided in the bye-laws of the Society. Sub-section (2) of the said section 21 provided that such meeting should be held not more than fifteen months after the date of the last preceding meeting held under sub-section (1) of the said section 21 and sub-section (3) of the said section 21 provided that on the failure of the Managing Committee of the Society to call the General Meeting within the aforesaid period of fifteen months the Registrar, namely, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal should call or authorise any of his officers to call, a General Meeting within a period of three months from the date of expiry of the aforesaid fifteen months, without prejudice to the penal measures, that might be taken under the said Act against the members of the Managing Committee for not holding the General Meeting within such period as required under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) while sub-section (4) of the said section 21 provided that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1). sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) the State Government might in special circumstances, permit the Registrar to call the general meeting even after the expiry of eighteen months, from the date of last preceding meeting held under sub-section (1). sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) the State Government might in special circumstances, permit the Registrar to call the general meeting even after the expiry of eighteen months, from the date of last preceding meeting held under sub-section (1). Section 26A of the said Act of 1973 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the said Act or in other law for the time being in force, the Managing Committee of any of the Co-operative Societies mentioned in the Fifth Schedule would, if the election of members of the Managing Committee of such Society had not been held within a period of fifteen months after the date of the last preceding meeting held in sub-section (1) of section 21, stand dissolve with effect from the date immediately following the date on which the said period of fifteen months had expired and with effect from the date of such dissolution of the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society, the members of the Managing Committee of the said Society would be deemed to have vacated their offices and upon such dissolution of the Managing Committee, the Registrar would by notification in the Official Gazettee, appoint a Special Officer for managing the affairs of the Co-operative Society and for making arrangements for the reconstitution of a new Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed therein and the bye-laws of the Society within a period not exceeding one year from the date of such dissolution and such Special Officer was appointed, the highest Executive of the Society, by whatever designation he might be called, would manage the affairs of such Society. 3. The Executive Officer of the Respondent No.6, Society by the Notice contained in Memo No. M-2/83-84/688 dated 29th February, 1984 (Annexure 'A') convened the Annual General Meeting of the Respondent No.6, Society on 16th March, 1984. The said notice, however, was challenged by some of the members of the said Society in a writ application in this Hon'ble Court on 12th March, 1984 upon which A.K. Janah, J., was pleased to issue a Rule being Civil Rule No. 2430(W) of 1984 and pass an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents therein including the Respondent No.2 in the present Civil Order from giving effect and/or further effect to the said Notice. The said interim order, however, was vacated on 29th April, 1986. In this connection, it may be noted that the period of fifteen months as mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 21 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, hower, had expired in the case of the Respondent No. 6, Society on 19th March, 1984 Subsequently, the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 stood repealed with the coming into force of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 on and from August 1, 1987. Thereafter, on 29th September, 1987, the impugned Notification (Annexure 'F') was issued by the Respondent No.2 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under section 31 (c) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, appointing the Additional District Magistrate, Midnapore, as the Special Officer of the Respondent No.6, Society for managing the affairs of the Society and for making arrangements for re-constitution of the Board in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed therein and the byelaws of the said Society within six months from the date of the said Notification on the ground that the election of the members of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.6, Society had not been held within the period of fifteen months from the date of last election held on 19th December, 1982 under sub-section (1) of section 21 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 and whereas the Managing Committee of the said Society stood dissolved with effect form 19th March, 1984 in terms of section 26A of the said Act. The petitioners have challenged the said Notification (Annexure 'F') in the present Civil Order, inter alia, on the grounds that the Respondent No.6, Society, not being a Society included in the Fifth Schedule either under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 since repealed, or under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The petitioners have challenged the said Notification (Annexure 'F') in the present Civil Order, inter alia, on the grounds that the Respondent No.6, Society, not being a Society included in the Fifth Schedule either under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 since repealed, or under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. section 31 of the said Act of 1983 is not applicable to the Respondent No.6, Society and that even if the Respondent No.6, Society falls within the Fifth Schedule of the said Act, exercise of power under section 31(c) of the said Act of 1983 in the present case by the Respondent No.2 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as such power can only be exercised if the election of the directors of the Co-operative Society is not held within a period of thirty-six months from the date of their election under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the said Act of 1983 and in which case only, the board of directors of the Co-operative Society stands dissolved. The said Notification (Annexure 'F') is also' assailed on the ground that no action under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 could be taken by the Respondent No.2 after the said Act came into force for any alleged violation of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973, as referred to in the said Notification, by the Respondent No.6, Society which Act stood repealed on and from 1st August, 1987, with the coming into force of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and that since the last Annual General Meeting of the Respondent No.6, Society was held on Ist September, 1987 by the Executive Officer of the said Society, no action also could be taken by the Respondent No.2 either under sub-section (3) of section 25 or under any of the clauses of section 31 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 as the time limit as contained in the said two sections viz., sections 25 and 31 had not expired on the date of issuance of the impugned Notification (Annexure 'F'). Lastly, it has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Annual General Meeting of the Respondent No.6, Society could not be held in due time because of the pendeney of the interim order of injunction passed in Civil Rule No. 2430(W) of 1984 on March 12, 1984. 4. Lastly, it has also been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Annual General Meeting of the Respondent No.6, Society could not be held in due time because of the pendeney of the interim order of injunction passed in Civil Rule No. 2430(W) of 1984 on March 12, 1984. 4. It has, however, been contended on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that since no annual general meeting of the Respondent No.6, Society had either taken place as per section 21 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 (since repealed or under section 25 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the Respondent No.2 bas rightly taken action against the said Society as per the provisions of section 31 of the 1983 Act and the impugned Notification (Annexure 'F') is thus legal and valid. It was also been contended on behalf of the said respondents that even assuming that the operation of sections 21 and 25 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act. 1973 were stayed or that no action could be taken under section 25 or 26A of the said Act for violating the provisions of the said section 21, because of the pendency of the interim order passed in Civil Order No. 2403 (W) of 1984, after the said interim order was vacated on 29th April, 1986, the bands of the Respondent No.2 were free to take appropriate actions for dissolution of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.6, Society and for taking appropriate steps in the matter in view of the admitted fact that no Annual General Meeting of the Respondent No.6, Society was held even within fifteen months from the date when the said interim order was vacated. 5. So far as the contention of Dr. Pal, learned Advocate for the petitioners that the Respondent No.6, Society is not a Society in the Fifth Schedule as contained either in section 26A of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973 since repealed or in section 31(a) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 in concerned. I am of the view that the Respondent No.6 Society can not strictly be called a ‘Central Society’ to fall within the category of societies as included in the Fifth Schedule to the repealed Act of 1973. I am of the view that the Respondent No.6 Society can not strictly be called a ‘Central Society’ to fall within the category of societies as included in the Fifth Schedule to the repealed Act of 1973. ‘Central Society’ as defined in clause (b) of the section 2 of the said Act of 1973 was a Co-operative Society the primary object of which was to facilitate the working of other Co-operative Societies which were its members. It is stated in paragraph No.10 and 11 of the affidavit-opposition used by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the present writ application, that the Respondent No.6 in the present writ application who figured as Petitioner No.1 in the Civil Rule No.2430(W) of 1984 admitted therein that the said society was a ‘Central Society’. Which statement, however, has been denied by the petitioners in the present writ application in the affidavit-in-reply used by them at the time of hearing particularly in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 thereof. No document, however has been produced before me by the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to show that the Respondent No. 6 actually functioned as a ‘Central Society’ as defined in clause (h) of the Section 2 of the 1973 Act and as such even if the Respondent No.6 Society had described itself as a ‘Central Society’ in Civil Rule No.2430 (W) of 1984, such loose description cannot be termed as an admission of the status of the said Society as a ‘Central Society’ as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Act in the absence of any documentary proof thereof and such being the position, section 26A of the repealed Act of 1973 also could not be attracted against the Respondent No.6 in the present case. Moreover, even if the Respondent No.6 Society could be termed as a ‘Central Society’ as per its definition in the repealed Act of 1973, in my view because of the pendency of the interim order passed in Civil Rule No.2430(W) of 1984 on March 12, 1984, which was vacated only on April 21, 1986. it cannot be said that the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.6 Society stood dissolved with effect from March 19, 1984 in terms of section 26A of the old Act of 1973 as stated in the impugned Notification (Annexure ‘F’) 6. it cannot be said that the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.6 Society stood dissolved with effect from March 19, 1984 in terms of section 26A of the old Act of 1973 as stated in the impugned Notification (Annexure ‘F’) 6. However, the definition of 'Central Society' has undergone a comprehensive change in the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1973. As per the definition of 'Central Society' in terms of clause (9) of section 2 of the said Act, the Respondent No.6, Society which admittedly carries on its operation throughout the district of Midnapore, can certainly be called a 'Central Society' as defined in the said Act but even then the Respondent No.2 could not take any action under section 31(c) of the said Act as the provision of section 31 of the said Act of 1983, which is almost 3 reproduction of the section 26A of the old Act of 1973 with only slight variations, should be held to be prospective and not retrospective inasmuch as the words "shall...............period" in clause (a) of said section 31 and the words "the Registrar shall" in clause (c) of section 31 clearly indicate that the section is prospective in operation. To hold that section 31 is retrospective in operation will lead to manifest absurdity. Under clause (a) of section 31 the date of dissolution has been fixed to be the date following the day on which the said period of thirty six months expires. The Registrar shall appoint a Special Officer for managing the affairs of the society and for holding the election within a period not exceeding one year from the date of such dissolution. There may be cases where the said period of one year had expired before the enactment of section 31 and in such cases, the section will not be applicable. In the present case admittedly, the last Annual General Meeting of the society was held on December 19, 1982 and the period of thirty six months had expired on or about December 18, 1985 and the period of one year from that date had expired in December, 1986, that is, long before the enactment of section 31. Thus section 31 also, does not in terms apply to the instant case. On a proper construction of section 31, I thus hold that the section is net retrospective in operation, but it applies prospectively. Thus section 31 also, does not in terms apply to the instant case. On a proper construction of section 31, I thus hold that the section is net retrospective in operation, but it applies prospectively. The provisions of section 31 will apply only in those cases where the period of thirty six months referred to in clause (a) of the section expires after the enactment of the section 31. Reference may be made to the Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in the case of (1) Ali Ahmed v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1981 Cal 378 which was a decision on the interpretation of section 26A of the repealed Act of 1973 and in which it was held that the said section 26A had to be lead not as retrospective in operation but as prospective. The impugned Notification dated September 23, 1987 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, West Bengal under section 31(c) of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Act, 1983 appointing a Special Officer for managing the affairs of the Respondent No.6 Society and for making reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the Society is, therefore, illegal and ultra vires section 31 and is void and thus is quashed. 7. Although the impugned Notification (Annexure 'F') can not be sustained in law and is quashed because of the reasons indicated above, since the term of the Managing Committee of the Respondent No.6, Society had long expired, it is not proper that such a defunct committee should still function after its natural death and as such the Respondent No.2 is directed to take all possible steps to arrange for reconstitution of the Managing Committee or the board of directors of the Respondent No.6, Society as per law without any delay and In the meantime let the Additional District Magistrate, Midnapore take charge of the affairs of the Society as an Administrator till such reconstitution is made. Such order is made in the interest of the said Society, as a defunct Managing Committee of a Society, whose terms had long expired and/or which died a natural death, should not be allowed to continue. The Writ application is thus disposed of as above without, however any order as to costs.