G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE question which requires consideration here is whether the Committee of Management of a co-operative Society get an extended lease of life in view of U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001 if its original term of three years had not expired before 24. 12. 2001. ( 2 ) PARTIES have exchanged affidavits and on their request, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. ( 3 ) NAGAR Sahkari Bank Ltd. . Gorakhpur, is an Urban Co-operative Bank. The election to elect the committee of Management of the aforesaid Co-operative Society was held on 28. 12. 1998 and a board of Directors was elected. The Board of Directors in its meeting held on 29. 12. 1998 elected the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Ram Singh, who was elected as the Chairman of Committee of Management of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. Is petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the relevant time, laid down that the term of every Committee of Management shall be three years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 provides that election to reconstitute the Committee of Management of a Cooperative Society shall be completed at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the existing Committee of Management. In accordance with the said provision, steps were taken for holding fresh election and the Secretary of the Co-operative society wrote a letter to the Assistant Registrar. Co-operative Societies on 28. 8. 2001 in accordance with Rule 407 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as rules), to take appropriate steps for holding of the election. The Registrar, Co-operative socicties, U. P. fixed 21. 12. 2001 as the date for holding the election of Committee of management and 22. 12. 2001 as the date for sending the delegates to other Societies. In accordance with the said programme, the election to constitute the new Committee of management was held on 21. 12. 2001 and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof were elected on 22. 12. 2001. Two days thereafter, i. e. , on 24. 12. 12. 2001 as the date for sending the delegates to other Societies. In accordance with the said programme, the election to constitute the new Committee of management was held on 21. 12. 2001 and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof were elected on 22. 12. 2001. Two days thereafter, i. e. , on 24. 12. 2001, the Governor of U. P. promulgated the u. P. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 (U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001)by which Sub-section (2) of Section 29 was amended and the term of Committee of Management was extended to five years. The petitioners claim that in view of the aforesaid Ordinance, they are entitled to continue and function as Committee of Management and Chairman respectively upto 28. 12. 2003 and the Committee of Management, which was elected on 21. 12. 2001 is not entitled to function or exercise any power. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised at the Bar. It will be convenient to take note of the relevant statutory provisions. ( 5 ) SUB-SECTIONS (2) and (3) of Section 29 of the Act (after its amendment by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1998), reads as follows : (2) (a) The term of every Committee of Management shall be three years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such committee. (b) The provisions of Clause (a) shall apply also to a Committee of Manage- ment in existence on the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Second amendment) Act, 1998 and to the elected members of such Committee. (c) The term of a Committee of Management, which has completed, on or before the dale of the commencement of the Act referred to in Clause (b), the period of three years from the date of its constitution, and the term of its elected members, shall expire on such commencement. (c) The term of a Committee of Management, which has completed, on or before the dale of the commencement of the Act referred to in Clause (b), the period of three years from the date of its constitution, and the term of its elected members, shall expire on such commencement. (3) Election to reconstitute the Committee of Management of a co-operative society shall be completed in the prescribed manner under the superintendence, control and direction of the registrar at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and the members so elected shall replace the Committee of Management whose term expires under sub-section (2) : provided that, where for any extraordinary circumstance, the election of the members of the committee of Management has not been completed, or could not be completed, the Registrar may. for reasons to be recorded, extend the term of the outgoing Committee of Management so however, that any single extension does not exceed three months and the total extension does not exceed six months and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to get the Committee of Management reconstituted before the expiry of the term so extended and such Committee of Management shall replace the outgoing Committee of Management even though its extended term may not have expired. " ( 6 ) SECTION 2 of U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001. which was promulgated on 24. 12. 2001, reads as follows : 2. In Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, for Sub-section (2), the following Sub-section shall be substituted, namely,-2. (a) the term of every Committee of Management shall be five years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such committee. (b) the provision of Clause la) shall apply also to a Committee of Management in existence on the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment)Ordinance, 2001 and to the elected members of such Committee. " ( 7 ) SRI Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the election for electing the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Society was held on 28. 12. 1998 and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof were elected on 29. 12. " ( 7 ) SRI Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the election for electing the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Society was held on 28. 12. 1998 and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof were elected on 29. 12. 1998 and as the term of the committee was three years, its term would have come to an end on 28. 12. 2001. Since the said committee was in existence on 24. 12. 2001, the date when the Ordinance was promulgated, it is entitled to continue for a period of five years under Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 29, of the Act. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has, on the other hand, submitted that Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 as substituted by the Ordinance refers to a factual situation by using the word "committee of Management in existence on the date of the commencement". Since fresh election had been held to constitute the new Committee of management on 21. 12. 2001 and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof had been elected on 22. 12. 2001, it is the said Committee which would get the benefit of the amending Ordinance and would be entitled to function. He has also submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act had been earlier amended by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1994 by which the term had been extended from three years to 5 years and then the Legislature had used the expression "whose term has not expired on the date of such commencement" and this shows that the Governor wanted to give benefit to the existing Committees of Management irrespective of the fact whether they had completed their original term of three years or not. ( 8 ) THERE is no factual dispute that the election of petitioner No. 1 namely. Committee of management of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. . Gorakhpur was held on 28. 12. 1998 and petitioner No. 2 Ram Singh was elected as Chairman in the election held on 29. 12. 1998. This fact is admitted in para 5 and Annexure-S. C. A-1 of the counter-affidavit. The question which is to be examined is whether the petitioners would get the benefit of the amending Ordinance. Gorakhpur was held on 28. 12. 1998 and petitioner No. 2 Ram Singh was elected as Chairman in the election held on 29. 12. 1998. This fact is admitted in para 5 and Annexure-S. C. A-1 of the counter-affidavit. The question which is to be examined is whether the petitioners would get the benefit of the amending Ordinance. Sub-section (2) (a)of Section 29 of the Act, as it stood prior to the amending Ordinance, provided in unequivocal terms that the term of every Committee of Management shall be three years. Sub-section (3) of section 29 lays down that election to reconstitute the Committee of Management shall be completed at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and the members so elected shall replace the Committee of Management whose term expires under Sub-section (2 ). The combined effect of original Sub-section (2) (a) and Sub-section (3) of section 29 of the Act was that the term of Committee of Management was three years and the newly elected Committee of Management could replace the earlier Committee of Management only after expiry of its term. The newly elected Committee of Management could not replace the already existing Committee of Management by merely holding the election before the expiry of the term. The election to elect the new Committee of Management has no doubt to be held at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the existing Committee of Management in view of the mandate of Sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act but that cannot have any effect on the term of the existing Committee of Management which must get a period of three years. The use of the expression "in existence on the date of the commencement" in Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the amending Ordinance therefore, refers to a Committee of Management validly in existence or which is in existence in law. It cannot be a Committee of Management which has merely been elected on account of holding of an election which in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 29 has to be held before the expiry of the term of the existing Committee of management. It cannot be a Committee of Management which has merely been elected on account of holding of an election which in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 29 has to be held before the expiry of the term of the existing Committee of management. If the contention of Sri Khare is accepted, it would lead to an anomalous situation whereunder there would simultaneously be two Committees of Management of a Cooperative society in existence, namely, the existing Committee whose term has not come to an end and the committee which has been elected. Such an interpretation can never be accepted. ( 9 ) IT appears that the words "in existence" in clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the amending Ordinance have been used to also take within Its fold the situation contemplated by the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 29 of the Act where on account of any extraordinary circumstances, the election of the members of the Committed of Management has not been completed before the expiry of the term of the outgoing Committee. The Legislature has given power to the Registrar, for reasons to be recorded, to extend the term of such outgoing committee of Management so however, that any single extension does not exceed three months and the total extension does not exceed six months. It is to give the benefit of extension of five years to such type of Committee of Management also that the word "in existence" has been used in clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of amended Section 29. ( 10 ) THERE is no dispute between the parties that the amending Ordinance came into force on 24. 12. 2001, which is prior to the expiry of the term of the petitioners which would have come to an end on 28. 12. 2001 and, consequently, they would be entitled to get the benefit of the ordinance and have got a right to function for a period of five years. ( 11 ) SRI Khare has next submitted that the petitioner No. 2 Ram Singh never made any protest and participated in the election held on 22. 12. 2001 in which the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the new Committee were elected. He also participated in subsequent meetings held in January and february, 2002. ( 11 ) SRI Khare has next submitted that the petitioner No. 2 Ram Singh never made any protest and participated in the election held on 22. 12. 2001 in which the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the new Committee were elected. He also participated in subsequent meetings held in January and february, 2002. According to learned counsel, the petitioner No. 2 acquiesced in the functioning of the new Committee of Management and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim that the petitioners have a right to function up to 28. 12. 2003. In our opinion, the submission made has no substance. Annexure-6 is a copy of the letter which was sent by petitioner No. 2 to the Secretary of the Co-operative Society on 24. 12. 2001 wherein it was written that in view of the amended provision, the earlier Committee should be permitted to function up to 28. 12. 2003. Annexures 6, 7, 8 and 9 are copies of the letters sent by petitioner No. 2 to the Secretary of the Society on 24. 12. 2001, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 17. 1. 2002, Deputy Registrar, cooperative Societies on 15. 1. 2002, and to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 10. 1. 2002, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that in view of the amending Ordinance which has come into force on 24. 12. 2001, the petitioners are entitled to continue till 28. 12. 2003. It is, therefore, not correct to say that the petitioner No. 2 acquiesced in the functioning of the new Committee of management. That apart, the alleged acquiescence on the part of the petitioner No. 2 cannot affect or alter the legal position, namely, that the earlier Committee of Management whose term was to expire on 28. 12. 2001 would continue to function till 28. 12. 2003. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. ( 12 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. A writ of mandamus is Issued commanding the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the functioning of petitioner No. 1 as Committee of Management and petitioner No. 2 as Chairman of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. . Gorakhpur. .