ORDER N.K. Patil, J.--The Petitioners in these petitions, questioning the legality and validity of the registration of bye-law dated 19th December, 1997 bearing No. DSK.STL.TIDDUPADI/165 of 1998-99 passed by the second Respondent vide Annexure-B, and the further amendment of bye-law dated 29th December, 2000 bearing No. DSK.ESTS.AMD/100 of 2000-01 on the file of the first Respondent vide Annexure-C, have presented the instant writ petitions. In the alternative, the Petitioners have sought to declare that, the amendment of by-law vide Annexures-B and C referred supra are not applicable in respect of the members admitted prior to the coming into force of the amendment under Annexures-B and C. Further, the Petitioners have assailed the correctness or otherwise of the impugned notices dated 12th December 2002 and 3rd February, 2003 vide Annexures-D1 to D6 bearing No. SO.SA.SA.KA.NI.BA/SHERU of 2002-03 issued by the fifth Respondent. The Petitioner have also sought for a direction, directing the Respondents 3 to 5 not to exclude any member from voting, participating and contesting in the election proposed to be held on 21st March, 2003 or on any other subsequent date on the ground of non-payment of difference amount of the enhanced share value. 2. The Petitioners herein claim to be the members of the fourth Respondent-Someshwar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita ('Sugar factory' for short). The membership of the 4th Respondent-Sugar factory is divided into five categories. The grower members are called 'A' class, Co-operative Institutions called 'B' class, State Government 'C' class, non-grower members 'D' class and nominal members are called 'E' class. As per the bye-laws of the sugar factory, it provided for an authorised share capital of Rs.02 Crores divided into 10,000 shares of Rs.2,000/- each for 'A' class members and 10,000 shares of Rs.5,000/- each for 'B' class members, 18,000 shares of Rs.5,000/- each for 'C' class members and 5,000 shares of Rs.2,000/- each for 'D' class members, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petitions. 3. The Petitioners herein are all members belonging to 'A' category and the value of one share initially was Rs.2,000/- and enhanced to Rs.3,000/- as per bye-law dated 19th December, 1997 and thereafter further enhanced to Rs.5,000/- as per bye-law dated 29th December, 2000. There were certain eligibility conditions for admission as member to the fourth Respondent- Sugar factory, apart from other usual conditions. There were certain eligibility conditions for admission as member to the fourth Respondent- Sugar factory, apart from other usual conditions. Assailing the correctness of the amended bye-laws of enhancing the share value vide Annexures-B and C dated 19th December, 1997 and 29th December, 2000 respectively and the impugned notices vide Annexures-D1 to D6 dated 12th December, 2002 and 3rd February, 2003 respectively issued by the 5th Respondent in pursuance of the amended bye-laws, the Petitioners have presented the instant writ petitions. 4. The principal ground urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that, a plain reading of the bye-law as registered under Annexures-B and C clearly indicate that, the enhanced face value of the share will be applicable only in respect of persons to be admitted as members on and after the date of amendment. He submitted that, the fourth Respondent has made applicable even in respect of the existing members so as to exclude them from voting, participating and contesting in the elections. Therefore, if the amended bye-laws are made applicable to the existing members, then, it is totally illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be struck down. As per Section 19 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, ('Act' for short), the amendment to the bye-law comes into force from the date of registration or such date as is indicated in the order. He submitted that, in the instant case, no specific date is indicated, under Annexures-B and C, and Annexures-B and C come into force from the date of their respective amendment, namely from 19th December, 1997 and 29th December, 2000 respectively. There are totally about 14,000 members in the Sugar factory including these Petitioners prior to the coming into force of the amended bye-laws. Therefore, the enhancement of the face value of the share is not applicable to the existing members as per the amended bye-law and if at all is made applicable, it is only prospective in nature. Therefore, it should be declared that, the bye-law as amended vide Annexures-B and C are not applicable in respect of the existing members or otherwise they are liable to be struck-down if they are made applicable to the existing members. Therefore, it should be declared that, the bye-law as amended vide Annexures-B and C are not applicable in respect of the existing members or otherwise they are liable to be struck-down if they are made applicable to the existing members. Further, to substantiate the said submission, he placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 22nd November, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 24884 of 1991 and submitted that, the enhancement of share capital under the bye-law is not applicable in respect of the existing members and that being so, the amended bye-laws vide Annexures-B and C are liable to be set aside, holding that, the amended bye-law is not applicable to the persons who are admitted as members prior to the coming into force of the bye-laws. Further, he submitted that, the action of the third Respondent in interpreting the bye-laws vide Annexures-B and C as being applicable to the existing members and thereby holding that, there is a liability under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act is totally illegal and without authority of law, in as much as a person can be a defaulter if there is an original liability and such liability is not discharged. He submitted that, the question of original liability under Section 19 of the Act does not arise at all in as much as the Petitioners have paid the required amount and are holding shares of the value of Rs.2,000/- which was condition precedent for admission of members as on that date. He submitted that, once the Petitioners are admitted as members, and are holding the shares, they continue to be the members and are entitled for all the rights and liabilities as members and unless the bye-law provides for acquiring additional share or additional interest etc., the question of excluding such members from voting, participating and contesting in the election or to the benefits of the membership is totally capricious and illegal. Further, he submitted that, the Respondents have violated the mandatory provisions of Rules 14(3) (4) and (5) of the Karnataka Co-operative Society Rules in as much as the fifth Respondent has issued the impugned notices vide Annexures-D1 to D6 demanding payment of difference amount on share capital and in default of the Petitioners, to exclude the Petitioners from voting, participating and contesting election, is totally without authority of law. Therefore, the action of the 5th Respondent is totally arbitrary and is opposed to the democratic norms in as much as more than 75% of the members are sought to be excluded from voting, participating and contesting in the election thereby the election proposed to be held will be only farce of an election. Further, he submitted that, some of the members voluntarily paying the difference of amount with regard to the enhanced share value, do not, in any way make the provision valid or will not make the amended bye-law applicable in respect of the existing members. If at all the Sugar Factory wants to mobilize the funds for its improvement, the only remedy to mobilize additional funds is by way of providing for purchase of additional shares by the existing members and the enhancement of the face value of the shares is only prospective and would apply only in respect of the new members and not retrospective applying to the already existing members. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, the impugned amended bye-laws proposed and certified by the competent authority are not in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules and the said consequential demand seeking payment of difference amount of share capital vide Annexures-D1 to D6 are one without authority of law. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted that, the amended bye-laws as referred above are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 5, inter alia, contended and substantiated that, the amended bye-laws and the notices issued for payment of enhanced share value is just and reasonable and there is no arbitrariness or unreasonable in issuing the same. To substantiate the submission, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents have filed the detailed statement of objections taking a preliminary objections regarding the entertainment of these writ petitions. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 5, at the threshold submitted that, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 5, at the threshold submitted that, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It is significant to note here that, the earlier amendment of bye-law was on 19th December, 1997 and the subsequent amendment of bye-law is on 19th December, 2000 vide Annexures-B and C respectively on the file of Respondents 2 and 1 and these writ petitions are presented before this Court on 17th February, 2003. There is inordinate delay in questioning the amendment of the said bye-laws. The said delay has not been explained properly nor convincing reasons are assigned by the Petitioners. Therefore, no credibility can be attached for the same. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be rejected in limine in view of the well settled law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1981 (2) K.L.J. P. 533 confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1109 of 1981 and Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal and Others, AIR 1970 SC 245 . Further, he has taken me through the well-settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Gurappa v. South Central Railway Employees Consumers Co-operative Society Limited and Ors. reported in 1983 (1) K.L.J. 106 and pointed out that, in view of the well settled law laid down by this Court in the said case, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek for any relief at the hands of this Court. reported in 1983 (1) K.L.J. 106 and pointed out that, in view of the well settled law laid down by this Court in the said case, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek for any relief at the hands of this Court. He submitted that, so far as the reliance placed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners on the unreported judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 24864 of 1991 disposed of 22nd November, 1991 (Sri Somalingegouda v. State of Karnataka and Ors.) is concerned, the same is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case on the ground that, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted before the Court that in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the election has been postponed and a fresh poll date has to be fixed and the interim order granted by this Court may be treated as final order made in the said writ petition and the said unreported order cannot be equated with the well settled law laid down by this Court in the case of Gurappa v. South Central Railway Employees Consumers Co-operative Society (supra), wherein this Court has followed the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court as stated supra, which is the good law and also binding and the same will have to be taken into consideration. Further, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 3 and 4 submitted that, the amended bye-law has been placed before the general body, where there were more than 18,145 members/shareholders of the 4th Respondent-Sugar factory and these six Petitioners are the only aggrieved who have come before this Court. This shows that, the amended bye-law has been accepted in-to by nearly 99% members. If these aspects are taken into consideration, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek for any relief as enshrined under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and this Court cannot exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction in favour of persons who are just not interested for sustainable growth of the 4th Respondent-Sugar factory. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 4 and 5 submitted that, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 5 and after careful perusal of the principal grounds urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the instant writ petitions and after going through the statement of objections filed by the learned Government Pleader and the Counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 5, after taking into consideration the rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the questions that arise for consideration is as to: (i) Whether the impugned bye-laws passed by the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory are in consonance with the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act ? (ii) Whether the impugned notices issued seeking the enhanced face value of the shares are in accordance with law? After careful perusal of the impugned amended bye-laws vide Annexures-B and C, referred above, I do not find any error of law, much less irregularity committed by the Respondents in bringing the amendment of the bye-laws. The bye-laws passed by the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory are not the law or statute. It is the contract between the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory and the members. Having regard to the sustained growth and maintenance and increasing standards, in order to provide relief to the donors and members of the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory, and also taking into consideration the raw material and other requirements of the Sugar factory, the bye-laws have been amended as early as in the year, 1997 and 2000 respectively. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents, there are totally about 18,000 members in the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory and only these six Petitioners have come up before this Court making hue and cry in respect of the enhancement of the share value at this belated stage, without taking into consideration the ground reality of the case. The said enhancement of share value is not only just and proper but also reasonable. The said enhancement of share value is not only just and proper but also reasonable. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gurappa's case (supra) wherein it is held that a bye-law of a Co-operative society is not 'law' within Article 13 of the Constitution of India and the bye-law comparable to the Articles of Association of a Company or a friendly society is only a term of contract between a member and the Society. Hence, a writ petition to challenge a bye-law is not maintainable. Further, it is held that, a writ petition to challenge a term of a contract of a Co-operative Society which is not a 'State' within Article 12 of the Constitution, is not maintainable. The said proposition of law in Gurappa's case has been laid down following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1981 (2) K.L.J 533 confirmed in Writ Petition 1109 of 1981 and also following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. Additional Industrial Tribunal and Others, AIR 1970 SC 245 . If the principles of law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court are taken into consideration, I do not find any justification to interfere in the amended bye-laws passed by the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory. Further, the specific ground urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in the instant writ petitions is that, if at all the amended bye-laws are made applicable, it is applicable only prospectively and not retrospectively to the existing members of the Sugar Factory. In my view, the said specific ground taken by the Petitioners has got no force of the reason that, before making the proposal for amendment of the bye-law, the matter has been placed before the general body meeting called by the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory on 27th September, 1999 under subject No. 9.1. In the said meeting, a decision was taken not to give any further membership since there are already more than 17,500 members in the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory. Further, on 16th October, 2000, the fourth Respondent has clearly observed that the membership in respect of around 800 members, whose applications were then rejected can be considered if the face value of the shares is enhanced. Further, on 16th October, 2000, the fourth Respondent has clearly observed that the membership in respect of around 800 members, whose applications were then rejected can be considered if the face value of the shares is enhanced. After careful perusal of minutes of the general body meeting held on 27th September, 1999 and dated 16th October, 2000, referred above, produced by the learned Counsel appearing for Respondents 3 and 4 along with their statement of objections vide Annexures-R14 (1) and R14(2), it reveals from the same that, only after due deliberations with all the members present and taking into consideration the larger interest of the Sugar factory, the decision has been taken to amend the bye-law. Therefore, having regard to the uniform sustained development of the fourth Respondent-Sugar factory, the consensus has been arrived at for enhancement of the share value. The said decision, in my considered view, is just and reasonable. I do not find any error or material irregularity in taking such a decision. Therefore, the impugned amended bye-laws passed by fourth Respondent-Sugar factory are just and proper. Taking into consideration the well settled law laid down by this Court in Gurappa's case (supra), I do not find any strong ground as such made out by the Petitioners to interfere in the amended bye-laws as well as in the impugned consequential notices vide Annexure-D1 to D6. Therefore, at any stretch, interference by this Court in the amended bye-laws is totally uncalled for. 7. Yet another reason as to why the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be rejected is, on the ground of delay and laches. The impugned amendment to the bye-laws has been passed as early as on 19th December, 1997 and 29th December, 2000 vide Annexures B and C respectively on the file of Respondents 2 and 1, whereas, these writ petitions have been filed before this Court on 17th February, 2003. There is inordinate delay in approaching this Court and the said delay has not been properly and convincingly explained nor assigned any cogent reasons. Therefore on the ground of delay and laches also, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be rejected. 8. There is inordinate delay in approaching this Court and the said delay has not been properly and convincingly explained nor assigned any cogent reasons. Therefore on the ground of delay and laches also, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be rejected. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, and taking into consideration the totality of the case on hand, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned amended bye-laws of the fourth Respondent-Sugar Factory and the impugned notices issued by Respondents vide Annexures-D1 to D6. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners are dismissed. However, having regard to the status of the Petitioners and the nature of their profession, in order to meet the ends of justice, it is just and proper that some time is granted/extended to pay the enhanced share value as per the amended bye-laws during 1997 and 2000. Accordingly, the Petitioners herein are permitted to pay the enhanced share value, as per the amendment of bye-laws brought during 1997 and 2000, as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the Petitioners pay the enhanced share value as per the amended bye-laws, the fourth Respondent herein is directed to accept and issue the necessary Share Certificates.