G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a member of the 2nd respondent-Society, calls in question Annexure 'h', by which, under sub-section (8) of S. 29-F of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('act' for short), the 1st respondent has authorised the 3rd respondent to convene a meeting of the members of the committee of the 2nd respondent to elect the office bearers under sub-sec. (4) of S. 29-F of the Act. ( 2 ) ). In May 1999, elections were held for the committee of the 2nd respondent society for the period from 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. In the said election, in order to elect nine Directors, 13 candidates had filed nominations. Out of them, nine withdrew theirnominations. After scrutiny, only four persons remained in the field. They were, therefore, declared as having been duly elected. They were available to function. That is how subsequently, three of them resigned and their resignations were accepted. That means that out of the four elected members of the committee, after three of them resigned, only one continued as a member of the committee. Three persons were nominated under S. 29 (1) of the Act as per Annexure 'g'. The number of members of the committee, thus, came to four. In addition, it is submitted that two more were to be there as ex-officio members of the committee as per the Bye-laws. The total number of members of the committee thus came to six. Under Annexure 'h', therefore, directions were issued to convene the meeting of the committee for electing the office bearers. ( 3 ) SRI Chikkmath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, out of nine Directors to be elected, since only four came to be elected, the committee did not stand constituted before expiry of the term of office of the old committee, and as such, the only course open was for the Administrator to function as committee of management under Sec-tion 28-A (5) of the Act. I would not agree with this submission for the following reasons :as noticed earlier, though elections were held for nine seats of members of the committee, only four came to be elected in the said election. The said four, as noticed earlier, were available for functioning as members of the committee after the election, because, it was only after they started functioning as such that three of them resigned. Sub-sec. The said four, as noticed earlier, were available for functioning as members of the committee after the election, because, it was only after they started functioning as such that three of them resigned. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 29-A of the Act deals with the aspect of constitution of committee and it reads thus :"section 29-A (2)1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules or the bye-laws of a co-operative society, the committee shall be deemed to be duly constituted when the majority of the elected members of the committee are available to function as members of the committee after the election. "it does not permit an interpretation whereby it could be said that only when majority of the nine members required to be elected i. e. five out of nine Directors are elected that the committee can be said to have been constituted. It is not so, what it says is that the committee shall be deemed to be duly constituted when the majority of the elected members of the committee are available to function as members. Here, four were the elected members. Even if three of them had been available to function, the committee could have been taken as having been deemed to be duly constituted within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of S. 29-A of the Act. All the four were available to function as such members. Therefore, the committee must be deemed to have been duly constituted when the said four elected members were available to function. Of course, the moment three of them resigned, if no other action had been taken, then, with only one elected member continuing along with two ex-officio members of the committee, the total would have come to three, and the committee, in such a case, would not have been able to function in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules or Bye-laws on account of the number of members of the committee falling short of the required number to form a quorum (of fiive) due to resignation of three members. The only course in that event would have been the appointment of a Special Officer under S. 81 of the Act. But, it so happened that, the State Government nominated three persons under Annexure 'g', to the committee of the 2nd respondent Society. The total number of members of the committee was thus taken to six. The only course in that event would have been the appointment of a Special Officer under S. 81 of the Act. But, it so happened that, the State Government nominated three persons under Annexure 'g', to the committee of the 2nd respondent Society. The total number of members of the committee was thus taken to six. There would have been quorum if the meeting of the committee were to be convened. Under S. 29-F (4) of the Act as it stood amended at the relevant point of time by Karnataka Ordinance No. 4/99, Chief Executive should have convened a meeting of all the said six members of the committee for the purpose of electing President, Vice-President etc. This was the position on the day Annexure 'h' was issued. In this view of the matter, Annexure 'h' was legally valid and was workable. But it so happened that, before the meeting could be convened in pursuance of the said annexure 'h', the petitioner approached this Court, and by an interim order dated 9-7-1999, Annexure 'h' was stayed. The result was that no such meeting could be convened at all. ( 4 ) NOW, having found Annexure 'h' to be valid as on the date it was issued, the question is, whether as on today, it is still workable, and if this writ petition were to be dismissed on the ground that Annexure 'h' is valid, whether a meeting in pursuance of Annexure 'h; can be convened to elect President, Vice-President etc. It is not possible to do so for the following reasons. At the time Karnataka Ordinance No. 4/99 was holding the filed, all six members of the committee, i. e. one elected member, two ex-officio members and three nominated members, could have been called for the meeting convened for the purpose of electing President, Vice-President etc. as provided in sub-section (4) of S. 29-F of the Act as it stood during the said period. In that event, there would have been quorum. But, the Ordinance has lapsed, and under sub-sec. (4) of S. 29-F of the Act as it stands, for any meeting convened to elect President, Vice-President etc. it is only now the elected members of the committee that can be called. In that event, there would have been quorum. But, the Ordinance has lapsed, and under sub-sec. (4) of S. 29-F of the Act as it stands, for any meeting convened to elect President, Vice-President etc. it is only now the elected members of the committee that can be called. Even though nominated and ex-officio members may be there as members of the committee even as on today, where a meeting is called specifically for the purpose of electing President, Vice-President etc. the said nominated and ex-officio members cannot be called for such a meeting, and it is only the elected members who have to be called for such a meeting. That means that, the only person that can be called for that meeting is the only elected member remaining. In that event, there would be no quorum. The situation once against has been reached wherein the 2nd respondent Society must be said to be unable to function in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws for the reason that, it is not possible at all to convene a meeting for the purpose of electing President. Vice-President, etc. It cannot be said that a society can function with merely six members, without it being possible at all for them to elect President, Vice-President etc. , Annexure 'h', therefore, in the changed legal position, has become unworkable. The only course open, therefore, is for appointment of Special Officer under S. 31 of the Act. The authorities concerned are therefore directed to immediately take steps in this regard. ( 5 ) PETITION disposed of accordingly. --- *** --- .