JUDGMENT : H.G. RAMESH, J. 1. The question that requires to be examined in this case is, whether ‘the remaining term of office of the board’ referred to in Section 29-E of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short) has to be computed from the date, when the vacancy in the office of the director of the board occurred, or from the date of notification to fill the vacancy? 2. These intra Court appeals are directed against the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 46944-46945/2017. We have heard Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri V.Sreenidhi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5, Sri Vinayaka.B, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and perused the record. 3. To examine the aforesaid question, it is relevant to refer to Section 29-E of the Act, which reads as follows: “29-E. Filling up of casual vacancy in the office of members of the Board.— Any vacancy in the office of members of the board of a co-operative society by reason of death, resignation, removal or otherwise, shall be filled up in such manner as may be specified in the bye-laws of such society: Provided that the co-operative election commission shall conduct the election to fill up any vacancy in the office of the director of the board if the remaining term of office of the board is more than half of its original term: Provided further that the board may fill up a casual vacancy on the board by nomination out of the same class of members in respect of which the casual vacancy has arisen, if the remaining term of office of the board is less than half of its original term: Provided also that, if the Board fails to fill up such casual vacancy within three months of the date of occurrence, the Registrar shall fill up through nomination.” A plain reading of Section 29-E of the Act extracted above indicates that ‘the remaining term of office of the board’ referred to therein has to be computed from the date when the vacancy in the office of the director of the board occurred and not from the date of notification to fill the vacancy. There is nothing in the Section to suggest to the contrary. There is nothing in the Section to suggest to the contrary. If so computed, the remaining term of office of the board, as on the date when the vacancy in the office of the director of the board in the appellant-Society occurred, will be more than half of its original term. In such a circumstance, Section 29-E of the Act mandates holding of election to fill the vacancy on the board. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeals, I.A.No.1/2017 stands dismissed.