CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) WHEN this matter was taken up for disposal, the learned Counsel raised objections that unlike the other two petitions which I have disposed of namely, W P. No. 7569 and 16226/1988, in this writ petition rule has been issued and therefore it may not be disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing for which it is posted today in the list. ( 2 ) I do not think there is any sub-stance in the submission made because the petitions have been shown as connected, the question which fell for determination in the other two petitions mentioned above are not in any way dissimilar to the question raised in this position. Therefore, i must necessarily take up this matter also for disposal and dispose it of. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has contendad that he has taken up the ground that the executive government has no power to legislate in exercise of its power under Sec. 121 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 thereinafter referred to as the Act) and therefore the amendment made to Sec. 27 (1) of the Act is incompetent and therefore the notification issued in exercise of such power adding a second proviso is also bad in law. That contention is noticed only to be rejected as similar contention made in the case of Shivasharnappa Veerabhad- rappa and others v Assistant Commissioner and Returning Off icer, Bidar and others [1978 (1) Karlj 51] was examined by a Full Bench of this Court and the constitutional validity of Sec. 121 of the act was upheld by a majority of the Full bench. A provision which is in parimateria with Sec. 121 of the Act found in the madras Co-operative Societies Act (Sec. 60) has also fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of The registrar of Co-operstive Societies and another v K. Kunjabmu and others (AIR 1980 S. C. 350 ). In the latter mentioned case the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of Sec. 60 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act and the power exercised by the government to modify the provisions of the Co-operative Societies act and that such modification apply to a class of Societies or a Group of Societies or all Societies. Therefore, it is not now open to question once again as the question is no longer res integra. Therefore, it is not now open to question once again as the question is no longer res integra. ( 4 ) IT was next urged that the proviso added as second proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 127 of the Act was operative until the end of 1988. Therefore, the government had no power any longer to postpone the elections or otherwise interfere with the election to the Committee of Management. On a perusal of the notification dated 12-4-1989, it clearly indicates that on 11th April, 1989 the modification made to Sec. 127 (1) of the Act has been further extended beyond April, 1989 which presupposes that the 1988 time limit by the earliest of the notification has been further extended by the notification dated 12-4-1989 which now prohibits election to the Committee of Management in all co-operative institutions in the State of Karnataka till end of August, 1989. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons which I have given in W. P. No. 7569/1988, the grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition also does not survive for consideration. The petition therefore has become infructuous and is rejected. There will be no order as to costs. Petition rejected. --- *** --- .