JUDGMENT : Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. 1. We have to tread through a chaotic state of affairs in relation to the elections of committees in thousands of cooperative societies functioning in the State of Andhra Pradesh in order to pave way for a just solution. Our journey begins thus. 2. Under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, cooperative societies of three categories have been set up; Primary Co-operative Societies, District Co-operative Societies and Apex Co-operative Societies. The members of Primary Co-operative Societies elect their committees wherefrom emerge electoral colleges to further elect the committees and office bearers in the district and then to the Apex Co-operative Societies. To begin with the Act provided the life of committees to be two years but by statutory amendment, it was increased to three years. By amendment Act 16 of 1989 the life period was increased to five years. Shortly thereafter, the Government of the day thought of reducing the period of the committees to the original three years and so by means of Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 1990, the period was reduced to three years. That Ordinance was questioned in the Andhra Pradesh High Court by means of a large number of writ petitions on identical grounds and those in a batch were heard and disposed of by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 8783 of 1990 and batch cases on 18-9-1990. The High Court upheld the Ordinance to the extent of reduction of the life period of committees of co-operative societies to three years. Both the Judges constituting the division bench in the High Court in their separate orders, but almost in the same sound and tone, quashed various Government orders whereby the management of the committees were ordered to be put under the exclusive control of Government officers. In order to ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the co-operative societies, both the Judges of the division bench however directed the Government to appoint other fit and suitable men as described in terms, including erstwhile members of the Managing Committee who had acquitted themselves creditably in the Fast, to take charge of the affairs of the Committee till newly elected committees could take over. There is a slight difference in the range covered for the purpose by the two Hon'ble Judges of the division bench towards selecting personnel for the interregnum. There is a slight difference in the range covered for the purpose by the two Hon'ble Judges of the division bench towards selecting personnel for the interregnum. The High Court however at that juncture was never in doubt that by its decision there had not been left any elected committee of any Co-operative Society and that necessitated directions regarding the interregnum to countermand the effort of the State by means of the Ordinance to put each society exclusively in charge of its officers. 3. The judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 8783 of 1990 was questioned in S.L.P. No. 13786 of 1990 before this Court. In the meantime Ordinance No. 5 of 1990 got replaced by Amending Act No.13 of 1990. Writ Petition No. 1076 of 1990 was also moved in this Court by some petitioners attacking the validity of the Amending Act and in particular sections 3 and 5 thereof. Both these matters were taken up together by this bench and on hearing learned counsel on both sides, were disposed of by requiring of the State to hold elections within a period of six months commencing from the date of commencement of the Amending Act 13 of 1990, which date was June 30, 1990. It had then been expressed that having regard to the existing exigencies, the proviso to section 4(2) of the Act whereunder time could be extended, need not be put to use. By the disposal of those matters this Court declined to entertain the challenge to the Amending Act and in particular to sections 3 and 5 thereof as also to the judgment of the High Court leaving the question of law decided by the High Court open. Yet for the purposes of the High Court its interpretation of the law remained. 4. We had expected the elections to be over in all respects by December 30, 1990. It appears that the State had some difficulties to hold and complete them within the time ordered. The time was got extended from this Court on February 8, 1991 till April 30, 1991. But even then the process has run into rough weather. 5. Now on March 18, 1990 elections to the Lok Sabha have been announced and the State of Andhra Pradesh is put to the stupendous task of arranging roll in the State. The time was got extended from this Court on February 8, 1991 till April 30, 1991. But even then the process has run into rough weather. 5. Now on March 18, 1990 elections to the Lok Sabha have been announced and the State of Andhra Pradesh is put to the stupendous task of arranging roll in the State. The process is to last till the end of May, 1991. It has therefore come forward to plead for a suitable direction in the present Special Leave Petitions against interim orders passed by the High Court to retrieve it from the stress it is put to by various interlocutory orders of the kind passed by the High Court in various Writ Petitions in which there is challenge to the Amending Act 13 of 1990 and various learned single Judges of that Court having suspended the operations of sections 3 and 5 of the said Act. Still further a division bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal has affirmed that view. We had, as an interim measure, on March 12, 1990, ordered maintenance of status quo in the state of affairs in relation to co-operative societies as then existing while adjourning the case. We are now told that even our interim order has been understood to suit the ends of the Writ Petitioners fastly approaching the High Court. Apparently the erstwhile committees and/or their members having usurped to themselves the functioning of the co-operative societies by a physical take over without the involvement of the State are staying put by using the status quo orders of this Court as a shield. 6. We have weighed the matter having regard to the prevailing circumstances, and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that some respite need be given to the State of Andhra Pradesh. In obedience to our orders of February 8, 1991 the election programme has been published and has been scheduled in such a way that the elections would hopefully be over within the time fixed. In obedience to our orders of February 8, 1991 the election programme has been published and has been scheduled in such a way that the elections would hopefully be over within the time fixed. But having further regard to the supervening events and the stress to which the State is put to and its resources clue to the Lok Sabha poll, we deem it prudent again to enlarge the time for the purpose upto 30th June, 1991, which is the maximum time upto which the election programme can he extended, under the proviso to section 4(2) of the Amending Act. We therefore permit the State of Andhra Pradesh to reschedule its already published election programme in such way as is convenient and appropriate so that the entire election process, right up to the level of Apex Co-operative Societies, is concluded by June 30, 1991. The State of Andhra Pradesh ought to note that neither the present state of law nor this Court in the existing situation, would he able to extend time any further. Rescheduling and pursuant action thus would he understood by the State as a serious time bound matter ranking the high priority. 7. In relation to the order of the High Court in suspending sections 3 and 5 of the Act, we are constrained to observe that it should have been well advised to refrain suspending a legislation, and more so in a matter like this when there arises a presumption of constitutionality in its favour, preceded as it was by the Ordinance which was upheld by the High Court. Stopping the operation of law by an interim order was the least desired. Even the purport of these suspended provisions, when taken to logical ends, meant that the State would not abide by any judgment, decree or order of any Court, or Tribunal, or other authority, which permits office bearers, or members of a Committee, who had ceased to hold office, either by efflux of time or otherwise, the right to be appointed as persons in charge of a committee, and further that any action taken by the State in depriving that person that right could not be a matter regarding which any suit or proceeding would be maintainable or continued in any Court against the State, Government, the Registrar or any person or authority whatsoever. Even then by putting sections 3 and 5 out of its way, the High Court could riot have ignored its earlier order in Writ Petition No. 8783 of 1990 upholding the preceding Ordinance and which order had been left undisturbed by us vide orders in Special Leave Petition No. 13786 of 1990. Significantly under that Order the members of the division bench of the High Court had separately given suggestions and directions to the State to consider putting in charge amongst others the erstwhile members and office bearers of committees. For reference the orders of the High Court may be seen which are explicit. Still the High Court instantly has deprived the State of the necessary flexibility to chose personnel to run the societies in the interregnum. No right as such was ever conferred on any such erstwhile member of a committee or on a committee by itself on the expiry of 21 his or its term under the High Court orders in C.W.P. No. 8783 of 1990. Our order dated March 12, 1991 ordering maintenance of status quo as to the state of affairs in relation to cooperative societies as those existed on that date meant to preserve those state of affairs as were created or brought about under the directions of the orders of the High Court passed in C.W.P. No. 8783 of 1990. Thus now in our plenary jurisdiction, we request the High Court to bring all the stay orders in relation to these matters in line with their judgment in C.W.P. No. 8783 of 1990 and leave the day-to-day affairs of co-operative societies in the hands of persons chosen by the State in teens thereof, and where not chosen yet in the hands of its officers till chosen, and as the case may be, till the elections are held and new committees appear on the scene to take over. 8. For the way paved by us by means of the above order, the special leave petitions are disposed of. 9. Writ Petition No. 375 of 1991, I.A. No.2 and I.A. No.171 of 1991 are taken on board and disposed of in the light of the above order.