SATYABRATA SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment aud order dated 30th September 1993, passed by a learned single Judge of this court in CO. No. 17659 (W) of 1993, whereby and whereunder the writ application was disposed of with certain directions. ( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. ( 3 ) MURSHIDABAD DCC Bank Limited is a Central Society. Allegedly, its shareholders are divided into 4 categories. ( 4 ) 9 Directors constituted Board of Directors, out of which 6 are from PACS. one from Marketing Societies, one from Employees' Credit societies and one from other types of affilidated Societies besides three State nominees. ( 5 ) A writ petition was filed by the appellants, claiming inter alia, the following reliefs :" (A) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents, their agents and servants to forbear from holding election of delegates and election of Directors on the basis of general voting and further commanding the respondents to hold the election of directors of respective constituencies by and through the votes of delegates of respective constituencies and electoral college and compartment and further commanding the respondents to appoint an Election Officer to conduct the election of the delegates and also the election of the Directors to be held on 16-8-1993 and 17-10-1993 respectively" ( 6 ) THE contention of the writ petitioners before the learned trial Judge was that the election should be held on a compartmentwise basis, and the delegates should not be allowed to travel beyond its own compartment by voting for other Directors in other compartments. It also appears that prior thereto, representations had been filed. ( 7 ) THE learned trial Judge, by reason of the impugned judgment, disposce of the writ application with certain directions, but expressed his inability to interfere with the holding of election, as scheduled. ( 8 ) IT appears that appeal was filed and a Division Bench stayed the operation of the order. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and in august 1994, the said special leave application was disposed of. In the mean time, the election which was scheduled to be held on 17-10-1993, has already been held. ( 8 ) IT appears that appeal was filed and a Division Bench stayed the operation of the order. The matter went up to the Supreme Court and in august 1994, the said special leave application was disposed of. In the mean time, the election which was scheduled to be held on 17-10-1993, has already been held. It is stated at the Bar that pursuant to the said election and in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court of India, the Board of Directors assumed charge in September 1994. ( 9 ) MR. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised a short question in support of this appeal. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to a Notification issued on 21-10-1990 which was published in the gazette on 19-11-1993 by the Government of West Bengal and has submitted that from a perusal thereof it would appear that the State of West Bengal was of the view that the election should be held compartment-wise. ( 10 ) MR. Bhattacharya appearing on behalf of the Registrar, Cooperative societies has supported the contention of Mr. Chatterjee and has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India in ziley Singh v. The Registrar Cane Co-operative Societies (Cane Commissioner ). Lucknow reported in AIR 1972 SC 758 . ( 11 ) MR. Adhikary appearing on behalf of the respondent Bank has supported the judgment of the learned trial Judge. 12 Before we consider the merit of the matter, let us consider the effect of Rule 36 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rule 1997, (hereinafter referred to as the say (Rules) Sub-rule (1) of Rule 36 provides that the election of directors and office-bearers of every apex society, central society and primary society capital or any transaction of rupees ten lakh and above be held in the manner specified in this rule Sub rule (2) however, states that every society may for the purpose of election of directors vide its membership into different convenent groups, society in its byelaws the number of proportion of the member of the board who may be elected to represent each such group in the board and society further that such representative may be elected (a) by all the members of the society, or (b) by only particular group of members of the society to which the representative vacating the office belonged. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 36, therefore, leave the manner of holding the election upon the society itself which may be specified in its byelaws. ( 12 ) MR. Chatterjee has submitted that prior to the aforementioned notification dated 21-10-1993 which was published in the Gazette on 19-11-1993, discussions and deliberations were made, and thus, no election should have been held on 17-10-1993, that is, only a few days prior a publication of the said Notification, ( 13 ) THE said notification dated 21-10-1993 is respective in nature. A bare perusal of the said Notification would show that the Governor directed that the provision of sub-clause (a) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 36 of West Bengal co-operative Societies Rules, 1987, shall not only to the election of directors in the board of Central Co-operative Banks with effect from the date of the said Notification and that such election of directors in the board of Central co-operative Banks shall be governed by sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 36 thereof. ( 14 ) THE said Notification being prospective nature, as the phraseology used therein is shall not apply', there cannot be any doubt that any election held prior thereto is not hit by be said Notification. As indicated hereinbefore, rule. 6 as it stood prior to the issuance of the formentioned Notification, enabled the concerned society to hold election in one of the two ways specified in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 36 of the said Rules. ( 15 ) IN the view of the matter, in our opinion, the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge does not call for any interference. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in Ziley Singh's case (Supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court in that decision was considering the scope of rule 409 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules. The said decision as rendered on the interpretation of the provision of the U. P. Co-operative societies Rules. So far as the decision of the Supreme Court in Ziley Singh's case (Supra) is concerned, the Supreme Court in that decision was considering the scope of rule 409 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules. The said decision as rendered on the interpretation of the provision of the U. P. Co-operative societies Rules. Rule 409 of the said Rules provided (a) for division of its membership into the rent groups on territorial or any other rational basis and (b) also specified the number of proportion of the members of the committee of management in such a manner that different areas or interest, as the case may be, in the society may, as far as may be, get suitable representation on the committee of management However, as indicated hereinbefore, sub-rule (2) of Rule 36 of the said Rules employs the word 'or' and not 'and'. It is therefore, clear that whereas clauses (a) and (b) of subrule (2) of Rule 36 was disjunctive, Rule 409 of the U. P. Co-operative societies Rules was conjunctive in nature. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is according dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of this case, the will be no order as to costs. Satyanarain Chakrabarty, J. , I agree.