ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the Petitioners against the order dated 28.02.2009 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in Second Appeal No. 221/2007 (Suppl). 2. Short facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the Directors of Manasa Vipnan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit were elected in the year 2001 for a period of five years and the Board of Directors was accordingly constituted. On 31.03.2005, an order (Annexure P/1) was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, District Neemuch under Section 53(13) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) superseding thereby the Board of Directors. Operation of the said order was ultimately stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 881/2005 on 13.05.2005. The Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal started functioning, therefore, Writ Petition No. 881/2005 was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the remedy before the Tribunal. Revision preferred before it was dismissed on 05.09.2005, which was again challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3798/2005 wherein the operation of Annexure P/1 was again stayed on 06.01.2006. During the pendency of Writ Petition No. 3798/2005, order of suspension of the Board of Directors was again issued in exercise of powers under Sections 53 (10) of the Act on 28.12.2006 vide Annexure P/6. Final order was passed superseding the society under 53 (1) of the Act on 08.01.2007 vide Annexure P/7. An appeal was preferred against it before the Joint Registrar, who did not grant stay order. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 3036/2007 and Writ Petition No. 3039/2007 were preferred before this Court. This Court directed that the Petitioners shall continue to function and both the writ petitions were decided by common order dated 02.08.2007, in terms of the following agreed submissions: 1. Learned senior counsel for the parties agree that the order dated March 31, 2005 (Annexure P-1 in W.P. No. 3798/2005) be quashed. 2. It is agreed that suspension order dated December 28, 2006 passed by the Assistant Registrar having merged in the order of supersession, W.P. No. 3039/2007 challenging the said suspension order be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. 3. Since an appeal is pending against the order of supersession before the First Appellate Authority (Additional Registrar), the said appeal be ordered to be decided by the Appellate Authority. 4. 3. Since an appeal is pending against the order of supersession before the First Appellate Authority (Additional Registrar), the said appeal be ordered to be decided by the Appellate Authority. 4. The learned senior counsel agree that in order to remove any apprehension in the mind of any of the parties, it be directed that the said appeal shall be taken up for consideration by the Registrar Co-operative Societies himself and shall be decided by him within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 5. It is also agreed between the learned senior counsel that the elections held on July 18, 2007 and the subsequent elections of President/Vice President/Office bearers of the Society held on July 27, 2007 shall abide by the final order passed by the Appellate Authority in appeal. 6. It is agreed that till the aforesaid appeal is decided, the interim direction issued by this Court on April 25, 2007 in W.P. No. 3975/2007 shall continue to operate. 7. It is also agreed between the learned senior counsel that all pleas, including the question of completion of the term of Board of Directors elected in the month of December 2001, shall be available to the parties and shall be adjudicated upon by the Appellate Authority. 8. It is agreed between the learned senior counsel for the parties that the Petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the election of Board of Directors held in the month of July, 2007, if so desired, by filing an election dispute before the Registrar itself under Section 64 (2)(v) of the Act and if any such petition is filed, the Registrar shall decide the same in accordance with law. 9. The learned senior counsel agree that the order passed by the Registrar in First Appeal shall be kept in abeyance for a period of ten days, enabling the party against whom the adverse order is passed, to challenge the same by way of Second Appeal before the Tribunal. 10. It has also been agreed that the two contempt petitions filed by the Petitioners be dismissed as not pressed. 3. Petitioners, thereafter, submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Code of Civil Procedure to incorporate certain amendment in the memo of appeal No. 78/359/07, which was pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal. 10. It has also been agreed that the two contempt petitions filed by the Petitioners be dismissed as not pressed. 3. Petitioners, thereafter, submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Code of Civil Procedure to incorporate certain amendment in the memo of appeal No. 78/359/07, which was pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bhopal. This application was rejected by order dated 21.09.2007 vide Annexure P/12. The appeal was also dismissed on 08.10.2007. Second Appeal No. 221/2007 was ultimately decided on 14.08.2008 vide Annexure P/17, removing thereby disqualification imposed on the Appellant to contest election for a period of seven years under Section 53 (12) of the Act. This Court in Writ Petition No. 5313/2008 set aside the order contained in Annexure P/1 and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter and to give finding over the charge in accordance with law as well as to take into consideration the agreement between the parties in the earlier litigation. 4. Thereafter, the Petitioners submitted an application before the MP State Cooperative Tribunal that they are and consequently their Board is liable to be reinstated for a period of 475 days, on account of supersession, suspension etc., by virtue of proviso to Sub-Section 7-A of the Act. Copy of the application is on record as Annexure P/19. Details of the period were also provided vide Annexure P/20. 5. MP State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal, after hearing the parties, dismissed the application as well as the appeal vide impugned order dated 28.02.2009; hence, the present petition. 6. Shri D.D. Vyas, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has contended that since the Board of Directors was kept in supersession and suspension from time to time, as revealed in Annexure P/20, it is liable to be reinstated by virtue of Section 7-A of the said Act and the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 to 15 supported the impugned order. 7. Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 to 15 supported the impugned order. 7. We, at this juncture, feel it necessary to reproduce Sub-Sections 7-A, 7-AA and 7-AAA of Section 49 of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose of this petition: (7-A) (i) The term of the Board of Directors shall be five years from the date on which first meeting of the Board of Directors is held: Provided that where a Board of Directors superseded, suspended or removed under the Act is reinstated as a result of any order of any Court or authority, the period during which the Board of Directors remained under supersession, suspension out of office as the case may be, shall be excluded in computing the period of the term aforesaid. (ii) The term of the representative elected by the Board of Directors of the society shall be co-terminus with the term of the Board of Directors of the society for which representative is elected: Provided that the representative of the Board of Directors shall continue to hold his office till the expiry of the term of the Board of Directors of which he is a (7-AA) The State Government may, by notification, for reasons to be stated therein, extend the term of Board of Directors of a society or a class of societies from time to time, for a total period not exceeding twelve months. (7-AAA) Notwithstanding the expiry of the maximum period of eighteen months specified in Sub-section (7-AA), in respect of the committees between the period commencing on the 7th May, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said date) and ending on the date of publication of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1988, in Gazettee the period in respect of such Committees shall be deemed to have been extended for a period of six months with effect from the said date as if the notification for the extension of the period were issued under Sub-section (7-AA) on the said date. Admittedly, the Petitioners were elected in the year 2001 and their period was of five years, as prescribed in Sub-Section 7-A of the Act which was up to 19.12.2006. According to the original term of the Board, it was entitled to remain in office till 19.12.2006. 8. Admittedly, the Petitioners were elected in the year 2001 and their period was of five years, as prescribed in Sub-Section 7-A of the Act which was up to 19.12.2006. According to the original term of the Board, it was entitled to remain in office till 19.12.2006. 8. Question before us is that whether period of suspension, which commenced on 28.12.2006 is liable to be excluded in computing the period. On close scrutiny of the provisions contained in Sub-Section 7-A, 7-AA and 7-AAA, it is revealed that the natural and normal term of the Board of Directors prescribed under Clause (i) of Sub-Section 7-A of Section 49 of the Act is of five years from the date on which first meeting of the Committee is held. This is a term for which elections are contested and the successful Board of Directors holds the office as of right, unless otherwise ordered/directed. It is a term for which the Directors (constituting the Board) before hand knew that they would remain in office for such period. Period of extension provided in Sub-Section 7-AA and 7-AAA of the Act is an exceptional circumstance, which no one could have speculated before the election. The State legislature being well aware of it, inserted the proviso for exclusion after Clause (i) of Sub-Section 7-A. This proviso has been added to Clause (i) alone. Proviso to Clause (i) to Sub-Section 7-A provides for exclusion of the period, during which the Board of Directors remained under supersession, suspension or removal under the Act and is reinstated as a result of any order of any Court or authority. This is clear from the words "shall be excluded in computing the period of the term aforesaid" (underlined by this Court). The word term occurring in the proviso is not unqualified, but is qualified by the word 'aforesaid', which would mean the term which has been prescribed in the preceding clause i.e. Clause (i) of Sub-Section 7-A. It is observed that the proviso containing a provision for exclusion in computing the period of the term of Board of Directors has been inserted as a proviso to Clause (i) alone and not subsequent to Sub-Section 7-AA and 7-AAA of the Act. This in our opinion seems to have been inserted with the sole intention of providing the natural and normal term of five years to the Board of Directors. This in our opinion seems to have been inserted with the sole intention of providing the natural and normal term of five years to the Board of Directors. Exclusion from the period of extension provided by virtue of Sub-Section 7-AA and 7-AAA is not contemplated under the said proviso. Accordingly, we hold that the suspension, which virtually took place on 28.12.2006 i.e. after expiry of original term of the Petitioners on 19.12.2006 is of no assistance to the Petitioners to seek benefit of proviso to Clause (i) to Sub-Section 7-A of Section 49 of the Act. We, accordingly, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 9. In the result, we hold that the petition has no force and the same is, therefore, hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.