Judgment 1. Petitioner is elected as Chairman of respondent No.5 - Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Yeshwanthpura, Bangalore (for short, 'the APMC') on 24.07.2009. The term of the Chairman of the Market Committee as per Section 42 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 (for short, 'the Act') as it stood then was commensurate with the term of the Market Committee. The Committee was constituted for a term of five years which would expire on 19.09.2012. Therefore, the term of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman as per Section 42 of the Act as it stood prior to the amendment was till 19.09.2012 i.e., to say uptil the term of the Market Committee. By Amending Act WP 45064/2011 No.18 of 2010, the term of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman is restricted to 20 months or uptil the term of Market Committee, whichever is earlier, by substituting the earlier expression which stated that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall continue in office 'for the term of the Market Committee'. 2. The Respondent No.3 - Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, issued a letter dated 16.11.2011 directing the APMC, Yeshwanthpur, to hold election for the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and submit a report to him on the ground that the term of the present President - petitioner herein would come to an end on 15.12.2011. Pursuant to this letter, a meeting of the APMC, Yeshwanthpur, to hold election for the post of Chairman was convened by the Election Officer and the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division, Bangalore, vide his letter dated 02.12.2011 fixing the date of meeting on 14.12.2011. At this stage, petitioner has rushed to this Court challenging the communication issued convening the meeting and for a direction that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Chairman of the Market Committee till the expiry of the term of the Market Committee on 19.09.2012 as per the unamended provision of Section 42(1) of the Act. 3. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. 3. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. Jayakumar S.Patil, is that the amendment made to Section 42(1) of the Act is effective only from 16.04.2010 as it does not have retrospective effect so as to take away the right of the petitioner to continue to hold the post of Chairman till the term for which the Committee has been constituted, as this was the position that obtained under the unamended provision. The point canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that mere use of the word substitution does not amount to giving retrospective operation to the amendment. Tenure of office being a substantial right, in the absence of any express provision made giving retrospective operation to the amendment, the amendment is prospective and the same cannot be construed to take away the vested right of the petitioner, is the legal contention urged. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following judgments: (i) EMP., MGMT OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF M/S. BCCL VS WORKMEN BY SECY. RASHT. COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH - AIR 2001 SC 1945 ; (ii) SHYAM SUNDAR & OTHERS VS RAM KUMAR & ANOTHER - AIR 2001 SC 2472 ; (iii) BHAGAT RAM SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS - AIR 1988 SC 740 ; (iv) SHAMRAO V. PARULEKAR & OTHERS VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA, BOMBAY & OTHERS - AIR 1952 SC 324 ; (v) SHRI RAM NARAIN VS THE SIMLA BANKING & INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. - 1956 SC 614; and (vi) MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI SARAN NATH SHAHDEO VS STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS - AIR 1999 SC 3609 . 4. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Nataraj and learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents Mr. Ajoy Kumar Patil, contend that the amendment brought to Section 42 by Amending Act No.18 of 2010 is by way of substitution substituting the words 'for a term of the Market Committee', by the words 'for a term of 20 months or for the term of the Market Committee, whichever is earlier', therefore, the effect of substitution, having regard to the object and purpose of the amendment, makes it clear that the petitioner cannot continue as Chairman beyond the period of 20 months. They further submit that no vested right of the petitioner is taken away by the amendment as the amendment only determines the period. They further submit that no vested right of the petitioner is taken away by the amendment as the amendment only determines the period. According to them, substitution dates back to the date of the enactment hence, the petitioner cannot continue as Chairman after the expiry of 20 months. Reliance is placed by the Counsel for the respondents on the judgments in the following cases: (i) SHAMRAO V. PARULEKAR & OTHERS VS DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA, BOMBAY & OTHERS - AIR 1952 SC 324 ; (ii) EMP., MGMT OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF M/S. BCCL VS WORKMEN BY SECY. RASHT. COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH - AIR 2001 SC 1945 ; (iii) SHYAM SUNDAR & OTHERS VS RAM KUMAR & ANOTHER - AIR 2001 SC 2472 ; (iv) VIJAYAKUMAR SHANKRAYYA SARDAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER - 1993(3) KLJ 411; and (v) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & OTHERS VS INDIAN TOBACCO CORPORATION - 2005 (7) SCC 296. 5. On consideration of the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the materials on record, the only question that requires to be examined is, "whether the amendment brought to Section 42(1) of the Act restricting the period of tenure of the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the APMC to 20 months or uptil the term of the Market Committee, whichever is earlier, affects the right of the petitioner to continue in the post of Chairman beyond the period of 20 months from the date of his election till the term of the committee which expires on 19.09.2012?" 6. It is clear that the amendment came into force on 16.04.2010. Prior to the amendment, Section 42(1) of the Act which pertains to the term of office of Chairman or Vice- Chairman read as under: "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall continue in office for the term of the Market Committee. 7. After the amendment which came into force on 16.04.2010, Section 42(1) reads as under: "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall continue in office for a term of 20 months or for the term of the Market Committee, whichever is earlier." 8. 7. After the amendment which came into force on 16.04.2010, Section 42(1) reads as under: "Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall continue in office for a term of 20 months or for the term of the Market Committee, whichever is earlier." 8. Section 3 of the Amending Act, Karnataka Act No.18 of 2010 by which the above amendment is introduced to Section 42 reads as under: "In Section 42 of the Principal Act, in sub-section (1), for the words, 'for a term of the Market Committee', the words 'for a term of 20 months or for the term of the Market Committee, whichever is earlier', shall be substituted." 9. It is well-established principle of law that in the absence of anything in the enactment to show that the provision has retrospective operation, the same cannot be so construed as to have the effect of altering the law retrospectively. Dealing with the effect of substitution, the Apex Court in the case of MAHARAJA CHINTAMANI SARAN NATH SHAHDEO VS STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS - AIR 1999 SC 3609 , has observed, by referring to the judgment in the case of GARIKAPATTI VEERAYA VS N.SUBBAIAH CHOUDHURY - AIR 1957 SC 540 ; HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - AIR 1994 SC 2623 ; and to the commentary of FRANCIS BENNION'S STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 2ND EDTION PAGE 214, that a statute which affects substantive right is presumed to be in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment; every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law; a statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication. 10. The golden rule of construction as stated in GARIKAPATTI'S case, in connection with Amending Acts and the operation of its provisions prospectively, in the absence of any intention to make them operational retrospectively, is that, 'the essential idea of legal system is that current law should govern current activities'. 11. In the instant case, there is nothing in the Amending Act which makes the amendment brought to the tenure of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, retrospective in operation either expressly or by necessary implication. The mere use of the word 'substituted' cannot give retrospective operation to an amendment. 11. In the instant case, there is nothing in the Amending Act which makes the amendment brought to the tenure of Chairman and Vice-Chairman, retrospective in operation either expressly or by necessary implication. The mere use of the word 'substituted' cannot give retrospective operation to an amendment. It is useful to refer to the judgment of the constitution bench of the Apex Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR & OTHERS VS RAM KUMAR & ANOTHER - AIR 2001 SC 2472 ; wherein it is reiterated that a statute which affects the substantive right has to be held prospective unless made retrospective either expressly or by necessary intendment. 12. In Maxwell On the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th Edition, the statement of law in this regard is stated thus: "Perhaps no rule of construction is more firmly established than thus - that a retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matters of procedure, unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. If the enactment is expressed in language, which is fairly capable of either interpretation, it ought to be construed as prospective only. The rule has, in fact, two aspects, for, it involves another and subordinate rule, to the effect that a statute is not to be construed so as to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary." 13. As regards the use of the word 'substituted' by the Amending Act, in paragraph 35 of the judgment in SHYAM SUNDAR & OTHERS VS RAM KUMAR & ANOTHER - AIR 2001 SC 2472 , dealing with the similar argument canvassed, the Apex Court while rejecting the argument has observed as under: "During the course of argument, a half-hearted argument was raised that a substituted section in an Act introduced by an amending Act is to be treated having retroactive operation. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the function of a substituted section in an Act is to obliterate the rights of the parties as if they never existed. This argument is noted only to be rejected. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the function of a substituted section in an Act is to obliterate the rights of the parties as if they never existed. This argument is noted only to be rejected. A substituted section in an Act is the product of an amending Act and all the effects and consequences that follow in the case of an Amending Act the same would also follow in the case of a substituted section in an Act." 14. Therefore, reliance placed by the Counsel for the respondent on the judgment in the cases of EMP., MGMT OF RAMKANALI COLLIERY OF M/S. BCCL VS WORKMEN BY SECY. RASHT. COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH - AIR 2001 SC 1945 ; GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & OTHERS VS INDIAN TOBACCO CORPORATION - 2005 (7) SCC 296; THE CENTRAL PROVINCES MANGANESE ORE CO. LTD. VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1977)1 SCC 644; and VIJAYAKUMAR SHANKRAYYA SARDAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER - 1993(3) KLJ 411, have no application to the facts of the present case. It is unnecessary to deal with the other judgments as it will only be repetition of the principles referred to above. 15. In the instant case, petitioner was elected as Chairman of the APMC and his tenure at the time when he was elected as per the provision in force then, was uptil the term of the Market Committee, which was for a period of five years and will expire on 19.09.2012. The right to continue as Chairman for the said term is a right recognized as per Section 44(1) of the Act as it stood then. If any amendment is made reducing the tenure so as to come into effect retrospectively or so as to affect the tenure of the existing Chairman or Vice-Chairman by necessary intendment, then certainly the petitioner could not make any legitimate grievance. But, in the instant case, there are no words found in the Amending Act which indicate in any manner directly or indirectly that the tenure of the existing Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall also be deemed to have been regulated by the modification made. Therefore, even though the word 'substituted', is used while making the amendment, the said expression cannot by itself ascribe retrospective operation to the amendment so as to affect the tenure of the duly elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman whose tenure under the unamended Act has not yet expired. Therefore, even though the word 'substituted', is used while making the amendment, the said expression cannot by itself ascribe retrospective operation to the amendment so as to affect the tenure of the duly elected Chairman and Vice-Chairman whose tenure under the unamended Act has not yet expired. The tenure of such Chairman and Vice-Chairman is governed by the unamended provision as there is no intention on the part of the legislature to curtail, regulate or restrict their tenure. 16. In view of the above, the Deputy Commissioner has seriously erred in issuing the impugned communication Annexure-D to hold election to the post of Chairman and Vice- Chairman for respondent No.5-APMC on the ground that their tenure would come to an end after the expiry of 20 months. Consequently, the election held to the said post on 14.12.2011 cannot be sustained. 17. It is necessary to notice here that by an interim order granted on 14.12.2011, the election conducted is made subject to the result of the writ petition and the elected office bearers are directed not to assume charge of the respective office till 09.01.2012. This interim order is continued subsequently until further orders. Therefore, it is clear that the newly elected office bearers have not assumed charge. 18. In the result and for the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned meeting proceeding at Annexure-E is quashed. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Chairman of respondent No.5-APMC till the expiry of the term of respondent No.5-Committee i.e., to say uptil 19.09.2012. Consequently, the election conducted to the post of Chairman and Vice-Chairman on 14.12.2011 is declared as illegal.