ORDER B.S. Patil, J. 1. In these writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the calendar of events issued by the 3rd respondent on 14.12.2011 vide Annexure-A insofar as it related to the election of the two 'B' Class members to the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent - Society. A direction is also sought declaring that the petitioners having been duly elected to the two 'B' Class category of members of the 4th respondent - Society, there was no need to hold election to the 'B' Class seats. Respondent No. 4 is a Taluka Agriculture Produce Cooperative Marketing Society Limited, Challakere in Chitradurga District. It is a Secondary Co-operative Society comprising of both Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Societies in the Taluk consisting of 'A' class members and also individuals who are categorized as 'B' class members. Petitioners fall in the category of 'B' Class members of the 4th respondent - Society. As per the bye-law of the Society, particularly bye-law No. 22, the management of the affairs of the 4th respondent vests in a Committee consisting of 11 members, out of them, 7 members are elected from 'A' class category and 2 members are elected from 'B' class category consisting of individual members. One representative is from the Financing Bank and the other one is the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chitradurga Sub-Division, Chitradurga. The second category members are holding office as ex-officio members. 2. Election to the Committee of the 4th respondent - Society was held in the month of March, 2006 for a term of five years i.e. to say from 2006-07 to 2010-11. The term of the committee came to an end on 31.03.2011. Therefore, the 4th respondent - Society was required to hold election to constitute a new Committee in terms of Section 39-A(2)(b) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (for short, 'the Act'). Accordingly, election was fixed on 21.03.2011 to elect seven members from 'A' class and two members from 'B' class. Calendar of events was published on 12.02.2011 vide Annexure-B. 3. Totally 16 members including the two petitioners had filed their nomination papers seeking election for the two seats of 'B' class members. For 'A' class seats, 22 members had filed nominations. Accordingly, election was fixed on 21.03.2011 to elect seven members from 'A' class and two members from 'B' class. Calendar of events was published on 12.02.2011 vide Annexure-B. 3. Totally 16 members including the two petitioners had filed their nomination papers seeking election for the two seats of 'B' class members. For 'A' class seats, 22 members had filed nominations. At the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, the Returning Officer rejected all the 22 nominations filed for 'A' class category as they did not have the eligibility pertaining to the minimum transaction as fixed by the Government. Therefore, nobody could be elected for the 7 seats of 'A' class category. 4. As regards, 'B' class category, except the petitioners herein, all the other members who had submitted their nominations withdrew their nomination papers. Therefore, as, only petitioners had been left in the fray, the Returning Officer declared the petitioners as having been elected unopposed. A declaration in this regard was made on 16.03.2011 vide Annexure-C. As majority of the elected members were not available to function as members of the 4th respondent - Committee, an administrator was appointed on 31.03.2011 for the 4th respondent - Society making it clear that he shall conduct elections for constituting the managing committee. 5. Thereafter, the administrator who took charge of the affairs of the 4th respondent - Society issued the impugned calendar of events vide Annexure-A for electing the members both from both 'A' & 'B' category. This has impelled the petitioners to approach this Court challenging the election scheduled to be conducted for the two posts of 'B' category members to which the petitioners have been already duly elected. 6. This Court vide order dated 10.01.2012 granted interim stay of the calendar of events at Annexure-A insofar as it related to the election of the two 'B' category members. It is not in dispute that now the Administrator has got the election conducted in respect of 7, 'A' category members. 7. The contention urged by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the election duly conducted for filling up 'A' and 'B' category members and as the committee is duly constituted, necessary direction may be issued to the Administrator to entrust the management of the affairs of the 4th respondent - Society to the newly elected committee. 8. 8. Sri B.K. Manjunath, learned counsel who represents the elected members from 'A' category who are arrayed as respondents 7 to 12 submits that once an Administrator is appointed as a result of the Committee not being duly constituted, the petitioners, though elected to the two vacancies in the 'B' category lose their membership and fresh elections are required to be held not only for the unfilled 'A' category members but also in the 'B' category to which the petitioners were elected. He draws support from Sub-Clause (5) of Section 28-A of Act to contend that the deeming provision contained therein has the effect of superseding the elected members such as petitioners and the administrator would be duty bound to hold election afresh to the entire committee. He also relies upon Sub-Clause (2) of Section 29-A of the Act to contend that the Committee shall be deemed to be duly constituted only when the majority of the elected members were available to function as members of the board after the election. Therefore, according to him, what follows from the provisions contained in Sub-Clause (2) of Section 29-A, is that if the number of members who could constitute the quorum are not duly elected in the election, then, not only the Board shall be deemed not to have been duly constituted but also its effect is that all the elected members will lose their posts because the administrator will have to hold fresh election to the entire committee. 9. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the provisions of the Act do not conceive such a situation and there is no need to hold election to 'B' category posts which have been duly filled up by electing the petitioners as members. He points out that the duty of the Administrator in such a situation is to hold election to the vacant posts in 'A' category and ensure that a duly elected committee comes into existence. 10. He points out that the duty of the Administrator in such a situation is to hold election to the vacant posts in 'A' category and ensure that a duly elected committee comes into existence. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Madegowda v. Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies - 1982 (1) KLJ SN 13 to contend that where the candidates who had filed nominations had withdrawn their nominations leaving only few in the fray and the Returning Officer declared only three candidates as duly elected, election could be held for the remaining unfilled seats and that insofar as the duly elected members were concerned, no fresh election was called for. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and on careful perusal of the provisions contained under Section 28-A and Section 29-A of the Act, I do not find any provision in the Act to nullify the election of the two members for the 'B' category seats, only because in the said election, required number of members constituting the quorum had not been elected. 12. Appointment of administrator was necessitated because the affairs of the 4th respondent-Society could not be managed by the elected committee as there was no quorum. The administrator was required to manage the affairs of the Committee and hold election within a period of six months to ensure that a new committee was duly constituted. That does not mean that already elected members will lose their seats and fresh election to their posts also has to be held. This is not the effect of the provisions contained under Section 28-A or 29-A of the Act or for that matter any other provisions to which the attention of the Court is drawn. 13. Section 28-A of the Act states about the vesting of the management of a Co-operative Society in the Board and also regarding the composition of the Board and its term. 13. Section 28-A of the Act states about the vesting of the management of a Co-operative Society in the Board and also regarding the composition of the Board and its term. Section 28-A(5) of the Act reads as under: (5) If the new Board is not constituted under Section 29-A on the date of expiry of the term of office of the Board or if the elections are not held within the time-limits specified in Section 39-A, 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 Board of management The Administrator shall, subject to the control of the Registrar, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the Board of the Cooperative society or any office bearer of the co-operative society and take all such actions as may be required, in the interest of the co-operative society: Provided that the Registrar shall appoint an administrator to a Co-operative Society or each of the Co-operative Societies formed after amalgamation or reorganization or division in accordance with Section 14 for a period of three months and the administrator so appointed shall arrange for holding elections to a Committee of such Co-operative Society or Societies as the case may be. 14. Section 29-A which deals with the commencement of term of office of the members of the Board states as under: 29-A Commencement of terms of office:- (1) The term of office of the members of the Board shall commence on the date on which the majority of the elected members of the Board assume office or the terms of the outgoing Board expires, whichever is later. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Rules or the bye-laws of a co-operative society, the Board shall be deemed to be duly constituted when the majority of the elected members of the Board are available to junction as members of the Board after the election. (3) The Board deemed to be constituted under Sub-Section (2) shall be competent to exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the Board of the co-operative society. 15. (3) The Board deemed to be constituted under Sub-Section (2) shall be competent to exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the Board of the co-operative society. 15. A conjoint reading of these two provisions makes it clear that the Board of the Co-operative Society has got a fixed term and the term of office of the members of the Board will commence on the date on which the majority of the elected members of the Board assume office or the term of the outgoing board expires, whichever is later. If the Board is not constituted on the date of expiry of the term of office of the Board and if elections are not held within the time specified in Section 29-A, the Registrar shall be deemed to have assumed charge as Administrator and he shall discharge the functions of the Board of Management. Nowhere in these provisions it is stated that once such Administrator assumes office on account of the failure to elect majority of the members of the Board, the already elected members will be deemed to have vacated their office. Such a consequence is not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The same cannot be inferred nor such an inference is warranted. No such inference also can be drawn by reading these provisions. It is well established that when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous and are reasonably susceptible of only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning. Useful reference can be made to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Gurudevdatta Vksss Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 2001 SC 1980 and in the case of Harshad S. Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra - (2001) 8 SCC 257 , in that regard. 16. There is no ambiguity in the language used in the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that if majority of the members are not elected for any reason, on the Administrator assuming the charge, the other elected members shall be deemed to have vacated their office and fresh election shall be held to all the posts in the Board. For no fault on the part of the elected candidates/petitioners, they cannot be saddled with such consequence. For no fault on the part of the elected candidates/petitioners, they cannot be saddled with such consequence. It is also not in public interest to hold election yet again for these posts, when their election has not been in any manner cancelled or nullified. Therefore, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The calendar of events insofar as it notifies election of two 'B' category members is set aside. The duly elected committee will be entitled to manage the affairs of the 4th respondent - Society.