JUDGMENT T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. Petitioner is the managing committee of the People's Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Tripunithura, a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). Pursuant to its election, the petitioner managing committee assumed office on 30-6-1989 at a joint meeting of the outgoing committee and the newly elected one. The election was held for the five year term commencing on 1-7-1989 and ending on 30-6-1994. On the assumption that since the committee assumed charge on 30-6-1989, the first year of its term expired on that day itself under R.39 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (the Rules), with the consequence that the five years term will expire on 30-6-1993, steps were taken by the respondents to appoint an administrator for the society under S.28(1A) of the Act as amended by Ordinance 3 of 1992. Petitioner's case is that this is incorrect as three years of its term will expire only on 30-6-1992, having regard to the fact that it had been elected for the period from 1-7-1989 and therefore Ordinance 3 of 1992 did not enable its ouster before that date. 2. The contention of the respondents represented by the Government Pleader is that admittedly and even as per the minutes Ext P1 of the society, the present managing committee took charge on 30-6-1989 in a joint meeting held by it with the erstwhile committee, and therefore the first year of its term expired on the very date on which it took charge, in which event the subsequent two years expired on 30-6-1990 and 30-6-1991. R.39 is pressed into service to support this contention. The committee was therefore overstaying the three year term fixed by Ordinance 3 of 1992 and was bound to quit office on the promulgation of the Ordinance. 3. When the original petition came on for admission on 14-2-1992 I ordered status quo to be maintained. The petitioners are therefore continuing in office. 4. Admittedly the managing committee was elected only for the term commencing from 1 7-1989. At the same time, it is a fact that the newly elected committee held a joint meeting with the erstwhile managing committee on 30-6-1989 and purported to assume charge on that day. The petitioners are therefore continuing in office. 4. Admittedly the managing committee was elected only for the term commencing from 1 7-1989. At the same time, it is a fact that the newly elected committee held a joint meeting with the erstwhile managing committee on 30-6-1989 and purported to assume charge on that day. Evidently this was done because the erstwhile managing committee was relinquishing office on that day, But the term of the erstwhile managing committee continued till the midnight of 30-6-1939 after which alone the term of the present managing committee commenced. The fact that for the purpose of convenience, a meeting was held on 30-6-1989 and the committees purported to hand over or take over charge, does not really affect the position that the term of the present managing committee commenced only on 1-7-1989. I am not prepared to accept the contention that the mere fact of a newly elected managing committee assuming charge on an earlier date deprives it of one year of its term at the expiry of 30th June when the election was held and the General Body of the society elected it only for the period from 1 July. R.39 has to be read reasonably and not so as to lead to absurdities. The mandate of the General Body is what is Important in such cases and not what the managing committee purported to do. That has to be complied with and if so, the term of the managing committee commenced only on 1-7-1989, the assumption of office earlier, for purpose of convenience being liable to be ignored in the computation of the term. The earlier assumption of office may be Irregular in given cases where the period is too long, but that may be a ground for departmental action for usurpation of office, and not for applying R.39 in a manner contrary to the purport of the election itself. Even otherwise the difference in this case is only marginal between 30-6-1989 and 1-7-1989 which is liable to be ignored in computing the period of three years. 5. What I have stated above accords with the view I have already taken in Malanadu Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1988 (2) KLT 548 , Para.8. 6. Even otherwise the difference in this case is only marginal between 30-6-1989 and 1-7-1989 which is liable to be ignored in computing the period of three years. 5. What I have stated above accords with the view I have already taken in Malanadu Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala 1988 (2) KLT 548 , Para.8. 6. I am therefore of the opinion that the term of office of the present managing committee commenced only on 1-7-1989 in which event, its three year term will expire only on 30 6-1992. No administrator can therefore be appointed for the society before 30-6-1992 in the absence of other circumstances justifying such appointment under either S.32 or S.33. No such circumstances have been proved to exist. 7. The original petition is therefore allowed. It is declared that an administrator is not liable to be appointed for the People's Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. under the provisions of S.28(1A) of the Co operative Societies Act, 1969 as the managing committee has a term of office till 30-6-1992 The petitioner will take steps to have the elections to the managing committee held, on or before 30-6-1992 to enable the succeeding managing committee to assume office on 1-7-1992. The original petition is allowed as above.