( 1 ) THE petitioner assailing the order dated 31. 3. 2003 in NO. AR40:rsr:administration:tmp:04:2003-04 passed by the 1st respondent vide Annexure -A, has filed this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the President of the Board of Management of the Society. He was elected as Director of the 2nd respondent -society in the election held to the Board of Management on 6. 3. 1999. Thereafter, the election to the post of President was held on 16. 3. 1999 in which he has been elected as President of the Society. Ever since, he has been continuing in the said post. The further case of the petitioner is that the election to the Board of Management was held on 6. 3. 1999 and the directors elected in the said meeting have right to continue in the office for a period of 5 years. In view of the same, the petitioner and his committee are entitled to continue in the office for a period of 5 years commencing from March, 1999 and the term will expire only in March, 2004. In view of these facts, the present committee is entitled to continue till 31. 3. 2004 in the office. Be that as it may the 1st respondent, by yielding to the political pressure has been erroneously interpreting the provision of the Act and was pressuring the Society to hold fresh election. Under these circumstances, the committee had passed a resolution on 6. 3. 2002 to request the 1st respondent not insist to hold any election to the Board of Directors since it has right to continue in the office till March 2004. However, the 1st respondent, without giving opportunity or any notice to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order appointing the 2nd respondent as an administrator to the said society with a direction to complete the election process within three months from the date of taking charge. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31. 3. 2003 vide Annexure -A, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE principal ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the impugned order is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the Act. 3. 2003 vide Annexure -A, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE principal ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the impugned order is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the provisions of the Act. The said order takes away the statutory right of the petitioner because from the date he has taken the charge viz. , 16. 3. 1999, he is entitled to continue in the office for a period of 5 years and the said term will be completed only on 31. 3. 2004 and the said right cannot be curtailed by the 1st respondent by passing an administrative order and that the 1st respondent is not vested with such power. Further, he vehemently contended that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without application of mind. He has not called for any report or explanation from the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Further, the impugned order is the result of malafide exercise of power, which is aimed at unseating the petitioner and other directors for various other reasons. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, interalia, contended and justified the impugned order. He submitted that the said order is passed in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and the petitioner has not made out any good ground to interfere with the same. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner was elected as Director of the 2nd respondent -society in the election held to the Board of Management on 6. 3. 1999 and thereafter, election was held to the post of President on 16. 3. 1999 in which the petitioner has been elected as President of the Society. Eversince, he has been continuing in the said post. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is contrary to the relevant provisions of the statute as in the instant case, the petitioner has been elected as the President and assumed charge only on 16. 3. Eversince, he has been continuing in the said post. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is contrary to the relevant provisions of the statute as in the instant case, the petitioner has been elected as the President and assumed charge only on 16. 3. 1999 and he is entitled to continue in the office for a period of 5 years. Further, he submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has passed a resolution and communicated the same to the 1st respondent that 1st respondent should not insist to hold any election to the Board of Directors on the ground that they have got a right to continue in the office. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The impugned order has been passed mechanically without application of mind. It is relevant to note here itself that as per Section 28a (4) of the Act, the term of office of the members of the committee shall be five co-operative years. It is worthwhile to reproduce Section 28a (4) of the Act which reads as under: " 28a (4) subject of the provisions of Section 29a and 39a, the term of office of the members of the Committee shall be five co-operative years and they shall be deemed to have vacated office as such members of the committee on the date of completion of the said term. Provided that if an election to the committee of any co operative society had already been held in accordance with the bye-laws of such society, prior to the commencement of the Karnataka Co operative societies (Amendment) Act, 1997, the term of office of the committee of such co operative society shall be three years including the co operative year in which such election was held" explanation :- For the purpose of this sub-section where elections to the committee have been held in the middle of a co operative year for the purpose of computing the terms of office of the committee, the remaining part of the co operative year shall be deemed to be a co operative year. Provided further that the first general meeting of a society after registration shall be held within one month from the date of its registration to elect the first committee to manage the affairs of the society and the term of office of such committee shall also be five co operative years. ( 7 ) A careful perusal of the provisions of Section 28a (4) clearly states that for the purpose of this sub-section where elections to the committee have been held in the middle of a co operative year of the purpose of computing the terms of office of the committee, the remaining part of the co operative year shall be deemed to be a co operative year. In the instant case, the election was held on 6. 3. 1999. The co operative year commences on 1. 4. 1999 as per Section 2 (d-1) which is defined as: " 2 (d-1) Co-operative year or year' means the year commencing from the first day of April" as per the said definition, the period of office held by the petitioner will be completed and the 1st respondent has rightly passed the impugned order and appointed the administrator. Therefore, I do not find any error as such in the impugned order. Further, it is relevant to note that the Secretary of the 2nd respondent - Society has submitted a report to the 1st respondent that the term would be over on 31. 3. 2003. Taking into consideration the said report and the relevant provisions of Section 28a (5) of the Co-operative Societies Act, the 1st respondent has passed the impugned order. The said order is in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. Further, it is significant to note that statute has provided when the co operative year commences. This Court cannot re-write the statute and interpret contrary to the provisions of the Act. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the factual and legal aspect of the matter as enumerated above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, 2nd respondent is directed to hold election as per the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31. 3. 2003 without seeking any extension of time in strict compliance of mandatory provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, 2nd respondent is directed to hold election as per the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 31. 3. 2003 without seeking any extension of time in strict compliance of mandatory provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. ( 9 ) THE learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today. --- *** --- .