JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. In all these original petitions a common question arises for decision. In all these cases, the concerned cooperative society had elected a managing . committee, the term of which was about to expire when the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1999, Act 1 of 2000 came into force, with effect from 1-1-2000. The concerned bye laws of these societies provided in terms of R.39 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, that the term of the managing committee would be three years. In these cases, no amendment of the bye law was made before the expiry of the term of the concerned managing committee. This court was approached with these original petitions in. the light of the amendment brought to S.28 of the Act by Act 1 of 2000. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the enhancement of the period in S.28(1) of the Act to five years and the proviso provided that a managing committee constituted prior to the commencement of the Act 1 of 2000 shall be eligible to continue for a period of five years, it had to be held that the term of the managing committee of these societies was five years from the date on which the managing committee took charge and that no fresh election of a managing committee was warranted before the expiry of the term of five years. The answer to this contention is that Sec.28(1) of the Act read with the concerned proviso by itself does not automatically extend the term of the managing committee and unless there is an amendment of the bye law concerned enhancing the term to five years and conferring the right in the subsisting managing committee to continue in office for a term of five years, the managing committee could not continue beyond the original term of three years in accordance with the bye laws of the said society. 2. 2. In our judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1543 of 2000 we have indicated, in agreement with the learned single Judge in the judgment that was challenged in the writ appeal, that Sec.28(1) of the Act read with the concerned proviso by itself is not capable of extending the term of the managing committee and in the absence of an amendment of the bye laws before the expiry of the term of the managing committee or an empowering of the managing committee by the General Body to continue for a period of five years, the . period of the managing committee cannot be taken to have been automatically extended to five years. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the provision which states that the proviso conferring eligibility on a managing committee to continue for a period of five years was not applicable to a committee where the committee has passed a resolution before the commencement of Act 1 of 2000 for the conduct of election for the managing committee, itself shows that if there was no such resolution by the managing committee before the coming into force of Act 1 of 2000, the term of the subsisting managing committee automatically gets extended to five years. We are not in a position to accept this submission. S.28(1) only fixes an upper limit for the continuance of the managing committee. It specifically provides that the period was not to exceed five years in respect of a committee constituted in accordance with the bye laws of the society. Moreover, there is no corresponding amendment to R.39 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, which specifically provides that the bye laws are to provide for the term of its managing committee. Going by the language employed by S.28(1) of the Act in the light of R.39 of the Rules, it has to be held that when the bye laws of a society provides a term of three years for its managing committee, the committee cannot continue beyond the term of three years merely by virtue of the amendment brought about to S.28(1) of the Act. As regards the proviso which provides that it shall be eligible for the managing committee to continue for a period of five years, it has to be noted that it only confers eligibility. As regards the proviso which provides that it shall be eligible for the managing committee to continue for a period of five years, it has to be noted that it only confers eligibility. The proviso does not provide that a committee constituted prior to the commencement of the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1999 shall continue for a period of five years. It merely makes that committee eligible to continue in office. That eligibility has necessarily to be in terms of the bye laws of the society. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in Kammukutty v. Joint Registrar, 1993 (1) KLT 103 and Board of Directors of Kottappady Service Coop. Bank v. Joint Registrar, 1994 (2) KLJ 795 that it is the bye laws of the society that fixes the term of the managing committee and S.28(1) of the Act only limits the period and does not otherwise interfere with the provision in the bye laws of a society. 3. In these cases, there were no valid amendments of the bye laws before the expiry of the term of the managing committee concerned. Of course, in some cases an attempt was made to have amendment of the bye-laws which was not accepted in terms of Sec.12 of the Co-operative Societies Act any valid resolution had been passed in that behalf by the concerned society to extend the term of its managing committee to five years as permitted by Sec.28(1) of the Act as amended by Act 1 of 2000. In this situation, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of having a declaration that the managing committee that was in charge of the affairs of the society as on 1.1.2000 can continue for a further period of two years or to have the notifications for fresh elections to the managing committee quashed. 4. The result of the discussion as above is that these original petitions have to be dismissed. There are cases in which the existing managing committee is continuing it terms of interim orders of stay and in some cases administrators have taken charge. 4. The result of the discussion as above is that these original petitions have to be dismissed. There are cases in which the existing managing committee is continuing it terms of interim orders of stay and in some cases administrators have taken charge. We think that in view of our conclusion as above, there has to be a direction to the managing committee continuing under the cover of stay to immediately pass a resolution for the holding of a fresh administrators wherever they are in charge, to pass the necessary resolution and to hold the election to the managing committee in accordance with the Act, Rules and the bye-laws immediately. The original petitions are, therefore, dismissed subject to the above directions.