Judgment : Petitioners claiming to be the members of the Committee of the management of the 3rd respondent society, are questioning the order at Annexure-E, dated 30.3.2010, by which the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore, has appointed the Administrator to the 3rd respondent-society. By the very order, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies had disqualified the members of the committee of the management of the 3rd respondent-society, for five years. 2. The records reveal that the term of committee of the management of the 3rd respondent-society expired on 31.3.2008. According to the petitioners, a resolution came to be passed on 1.3.2008 by the committee of the management of the 3rd respondent-society under the Presidentship of Y.K. Paccheswamy and that it was resolved to request the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to conduct elections to the managing committee of the society for the years 2008-09 to 2012-13 (for five years). Pursuant to the said resolution one Mr. H.T. Thimmashetty claiming himself to be the Secretary of the society wrote a letter dated 3.3.2008 to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, requesting him to conduct elections to the committee of the management by appointing an Election Officer; that the Election Officer was not appointed by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and consequently, the Secretary convened the meeting of General Body of the 3rd respondent-society and the General Body allegedly elected 8 members of the managing committee unopposed. Copy of the resolution’ electing 8 members unopposed, dated 30.3.2008 is produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition. Copy of the said resolution was also allegedly sent by Sri H.T. Thimmashetty to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, along with the letter dated 31.3.2008; that after the lapse of about two years an order came to be passed on 23.1.2010 appointing Election Officer to conduct the elections to the 3rd respondent-society as per Annexure-C; that the president of the 3rd respondent-society wrote a letter dated 18.2.2010 to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies intimating the Assistant Registrar that the managing committee is constituted consisting of 8 unopposed members and that therefore there is no need to hold the elections; however, the impugned order at Annexure-E came to be passed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, disqualifying all the members of the committee for five years and appointed the Administrator to the society. Questioning the order at Annexure – E; the petitioners herein filed appeal before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore, along with an application for stay. Neither the application for interim stay is heard nor the main matter, till this day. Hence this writ petition is filed. It is averred in the writ petition that the first respondent, who is the appellate authority, is on a long tour abroad and therefore the petitioners feel that there is no likelihood of the appellate authority hearing the appeal. Hence, this writ petition is filed questioning the order at Annexure-E, dated 30.3.2010. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that immediately after expiry of the term of committee of the management, the Secretary of the society his written to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies stating that the Election Officer may be appointed for conducting the elections to the managing committee of the society. A resolution passed by the managing committee dated 1.3.2008 was also annexed along with the letter. Since the Election Officer was not appointed, the General Body of the society itself chose to constitute the committee of the management and consequently elected 8 persons as members of the committee unopposed. The said fact is also intimated by the managing committee to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Thus, according to the petitioners, they are not at fault at all and therefore the impugned order is bed in the eye of law. It is the case of the petitioners that since 8 members are elected unopposed by the General Body, vide resolution dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure-B), they should be allowed to continue in office for a period of five years from the date of election. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Government Advocate. He submits that the resolutions at Annexures-A and B are not passed by the society at all and such resolutions are not found in the concerned book recording the minutes of the Board Meetings. He has produced the relevant records relating to Board Meeting, in support of his contention before the Court. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners have acted in a high handed manner in continuing office even after completion of the term of the managing committee and hence they are rightly disqualified. 5. He has produced the relevant records relating to Board Meeting, in support of his contention before the Court. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners have acted in a high handed manner in continuing office even after completion of the term of the managing committee and hence they are rightly disqualified. 5. Today, a memo is filed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners along with a copy of the complaint lodged by Sri. H.T. Thimmashetty, dated 9.2.2008, before the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mysore. The said complaint reveals that the meeting book is forcibly snatched and taken away by the Enquiry Officer, viz., Sri Venkatachala of MDCC Bank on 5.2.2008 and that said H.T. Thimmashetty opened a new book for the purpose of entering day to day affairs of the Bank. From the above it is clear that, all is not well with the third respondent-society. 6. As per Sub-section (4) of Section 28-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), the term of the 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. Sub-section (5) of Section 28-A of the Act reveals that if the new committee is not constituted under Section 29-A of the Act, on the date of expiry of the term of office of the committee, the Registrar or any other Officer within whose jurisdiction the society is situated and who is authorized by the Registrar, shall be deemed to have assumed charge as Administrator and he shall for all purposes function as such committee of management. Thus, it is clear from the aforementioned provisions that the term of office of the members of the committee shall be five co-operative years and they shall be deemed to have vacated the office on the date of expiry of the said term. It is not in dispute that the term of the managing committee expired on 31.3.2008. The same is also clear from the records. Thus, the then members of the committee have no locus standi to continue in office after 31.3.2008. They shall be deemed to have vacated the office w.e.f. 31.3.2008. It is not in dispute that the term of the managing committee expired on 31.3.2008. The same is also clear from the records. Thus, the then members of the committee have no locus standi to continue in office after 31.3.2008. They shall be deemed to have vacated the office w.e.f. 31.3.2008. Consequently, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies within whose jurisdiction the society is constituted shall assume charge as Administrator of the society automatically by operation of law as found in Section 29A of the Act. Thus, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is deemed to have assumed charge as an Administrator of the third respondent w.e.f. 31.3.2008. Section 39-A of the Act deals with the conduct of elections. Sub-section (1) of Section 39-A of the Act narrates that every general election of members of the committee other than the members of the first committee of a co-operative society after its registration or any casual vacancy shall be held subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the Registrar. Rule 14 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Rules (for short hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), makes it amply clear that the Registrar shall appoint an officer or official of the State Government or a local authority as Returning Officer for the purpose of conducting the election of members to the committee of every co-operative society. The Returning Officer so appointed shall publish a calendar of events for the purpose of conducting the elections of members of the committee. It is further explained in the said Rule that the election process shall commence with the publication of the calendar of events by the Returning Officer on the notice board of the society. From the above, it is evidence that neither general body nor anybody on its behalf should have conducted the election. Section 39-A of the Act mandates that the election shall be held subject to superintendence, direction and control of the Registrar. But the case of the petitioners is that the General Body of the society itself has conducted the elections to the managing committee since no Election Officer was appointed by the Registrar. Even if the Returning Officer is not appointed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the General Body of the society cannot conduct the election without superintendence, direction and control of the Registrar. The General Body cannot act illegally by ignoring mandatory provisions of law. Even if the Returning Officer is not appointed by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the General Body of the society cannot conduct the election without superintendence, direction and control of the Registrar. The General Body cannot act illegally by ignoring mandatory provisions of law. It will have to wait till the election officer is appointed in accordance with law. Moreover, General Body cannot take such decision. It is for the administrator to initiate action to get the elections to the Committee of Management conducted in accordance with law. The election has to be conducted only on the appointment of the Returning Officer under Rule 14 of the Rules. Thus, the case of the petitioners that the General Body of the Society has conducted the elections suo moto and passed a resolution dated 31.3.2008 electing 8 members as unopposed cannot be sustained. Even if such an election has really taken place, the same is not only illegal but also void ab initio. Moreover, the resolutions at Annexure-A and B do not find place in the Registrar maintained by the Society. Hence, prima facie Annexures-A and B cannot be looked into and relied upon. Be that as it may, even believing the contention of the petitioners that Mr. H.T. Thimmashetty has lodged a complaint before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Mysore, on 9.2.2008 alleging that the meeting book is snatched and taken away by Mr. Venkatachala, (the Enquiry Officer) on 5.2.2008, even then, said H.T. Thimmashetty calling himself as Secretary of the society should not have allowed the General Body of the society to conduct the election without the superintendence, direction and control of the Registrar. More over, the resolution dated 5.2.2008 which is found in the meeting book clearly reveals that the committee of the management decided to terminate the services of said Thimmashetty as he attained the age of superannuation. If it is so, said Thimmashetty could not have been continued as Secretary of the society. Be that as it may, since the petitioners who are the members of the alleged newly constituted managing committee by virtue of the alleged illegal resolution dated 30.3.2008, could not have continued in office after 31.3.2008, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of appointment of administrator. Be that as it may, since the petitioners who are the members of the alleged newly constituted managing committee by virtue of the alleged illegal resolution dated 30.3.2008, could not have continued in office after 31.3.2008, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order of appointment of administrator. The elections to the committee of the management of the 3rd respondent-society were not held after 31.3.2008 in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. The so called committee of the management has continued the office unauthorisedly and illegally subsequently to 31.3.2008. Therefore the Assistant Registrar has rightly appointed the administrator. Looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in that regard. However, this Court does not find any ground to disqualify the petitioners, inasmuch as the General Body is stated to have conducted the elections on 30.3.2008 and elected eight managing committee members including these petitioners. So called Secretary Thimmashetty has committed an error in allowing the General Body to conduct the elections. The petitioners plead that they did not have any option, but to act as managing committee members since the General Body had elected then unopposed. All the correspondences are made by the Secretary Sri. H.T. Thimmashetty. More over, the document at Annexure-A, i.e., the resolution passed by the earlier managing committee, dated 1.3.2008 and consequent letter written by the society dated 3.3.2008 requesting the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to appoint the Returning Officer to conduct the elections clearly go to show that the earlier committee has made arrangements for conducting elections within the time limit as specified under Section 29-A of the Act. The earlier managing committee passed the resolution one month prior to the completion of its term requesting the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to conduct the elections to the committee of the management. Thus, it cannot be said that the earlier committee has failed to make arrangements for elections within the time limit as specified under Section 29-A of the Act. Therefore, the case of the petitioners does not fall in any of the contingencies enumerated in Section 29-C of the Act. Thus, it cannot be said that the earlier committee has failed to make arrangements for elections within the time limit as specified under Section 29-A of the Act. Therefore, the case of the petitioners does not fall in any of the contingencies enumerated in Section 29-C of the Act. In view of the above and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the act of the petitioners in continuing the managing committee members after 30.3.2008, appears to be neither intentional nor deliberate but was bonafide under the aforementioned fats and circumstances. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a fit case to disqualify the petitioners. Accordingly, the portion of the impugned order disqualifying the petitioners needs to be set aside. Hence, the following order is made: Impugned order dated 30.3.2010 at Annexure-E, in so far as it relates to appointing Administrator to the 3rd respondent-society, stands confirmed. The impugned order in so far as it relates to disqualifying the petitioners, stands quashed. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.