ORDER This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the condition imposed by the first respondent while issuing the certificate of registration of amendment as per Annexure-F, dated 20-12-2004 to the effect that the term of five years would not be applicable to the existing Board and the term of five years shall be applicable to the members of the Board of Directors who shall be elected by the General Body in its meeting to be held after the date of registration of the Bye-law No. 21(2). 2. It is the case of the petitioner as averred in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is one of the Director's on the Board of Directors of respondent 2 registered under the provisions of the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. Election was held as per the bye-laws framed by the second respondent and as per the bye-laws which existed on the date of the election, the petitioner was elected for a period of three years in the month of June 2002. The said election took place when the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 was prevalent. In view of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which came into force with effect from 16-8-2002, the second respondent passed a resolution on 26-12-2002 to amend its bye-laws to keep the same in conformity with the Act and with regard to Bye-law No. 21(2), an application was made for amendment to the effect that the term of the office of the elected Directors shall be as per the term prescribed under the Act as amended from time to time. The said amendment was not approved by the first respondent as the term r f office of the elected members of the board was not prescribed subject to the ceiling of 5 years as per Section 45(5) of the Act. Thereafter, another resolution was passed by the second respondent on 24-9- 2004 fixing the term of office of the elected member's of the Board of Directors as 5 years from the date of election. Thereafter, another resolution was passed by the second respondent on 24-9- 2004 fixing the term of office of the elected member's of the Board of Directors as 5 years from the date of election. The said amendment was approved by the first respondent by order dated 20-12-2004 as per Annexure-F and while approving the said amendment, the first respondent has ordered that the term of five years shall not be applicable to the existing Board and it shall be applicable to the members of the Board of Directors, who shall be elected by the General Body in its meeting to be held after the death of registration of Bye-law No. 21(2). 3. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1st respondent could not have imposed any condition while approving the amendment of Bye-law No. 21(2) of the 2nd respondent-Society and in view of the amendment of the Bye-law No. 21(2), the term of office of the petitioner is extended to 5 years as per the provisions of Section 45(5) of the Act, which stipulates that the term of office of the elected members of the Board of Directors shall be as prescribed under the bye-law not exceeding five years and the first respondent could not have imposed the condition to the effect that the amendment would not be applicable to the existing board. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in the absence of any provision under the Act to impose such condition, no condition could be imposed by the first respondent. 5. I have considered the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 6. It is clear from a perusal of the averments made in the petition that when the petitioner was elected as a member of the Board of Directors of the second respondent, the term of office of the elected members of the Board of Directors was fixed as 3 years. Election was held in June 2002 i.e., prior to coming into force of the Act. The Act came into force with effect from 16-8-2002 that is after the election of the petitioner on the Board of the Directors of the second respondent. Election was held in June 2002 i.e., prior to coming into force of the Act. The Act came into force with effect from 16-8-2002 that is after the election of the petitioner on the Board of the Directors of the second respondent. The fact that as on the date of the election, the term of the office of the elected members of the Board of Directors was three years, is not in dispute. It is well-settled that when an amendment is made to the bye-law, the same would only be prospective and would not be retrospective unless the amendment itself clearly states that the said amendment would be retrospective and shall be applicable to the existing Board of Directors also. However, the petitioner was elected for a period of three years as per the bye-law and the Act had not come into force in June 2002, when the petitioner was elected and wherefore, it is clear that the condition imposed by the first respondent that the amendment shall not be applicable to the existing Board is justified and even otherwise, it is clear that even without such a condition, the amendment extending the period of office from 3 years to 5 years shall not be applicable to the Directors, who were elected prior to coming into force of the Act, and prior to registration of the amendment on 20-12-2004. The proposal for amendment does not contain any provision making the amendment retrospective and applicable to the existing Board of Directors also and moreover, the second respondent-Society has not challenged the order passed by the first respondent imposing such a condition and apart from the petitioner, the other Directors have not filed any writ petition challenging the said condition and the period of three years is already over in June 2005. Under the circumstances, I hold that no ground is made out for exercise of discretion of this Court in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, so as to call for interference with the condition imposed by the first respondent in the order dated 20-12-2004 as per Annexure-F. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.