JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. The petitioners- Nizar Taluka Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner Sangh') through its purported Chairman and Vice Chairman have filed present petition challenging the order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1-District Registrar appointing the respondent no. 2 as the Custodian in the petitioner Sangh in exercise of powers conferred under section 74D of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. It appears that the Court while issuing the notice to the respondents on 28.11.2018 had directed the parties to maintain status-quo, which is continuing till this date. 3. The petitioner Sangh through its so called Chairman and Vice Chairman have averred in the petition, inter alia, that the members of the Managing Committee of the petitioner Sangh were elected uncontested on 24.06.2014 for a period of five years and subsequently, the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman had also taken place on 22.07.2014 on which date one Sharadbhai Shakarbhai Patel According and Tukarambhai Raghunathbhai Patel were elected uncontested as the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the said committee for a period of five years. According to the petitioners, the said election had remained unchallenged, however, the respondent No. 1-District Registrar had issued notice dated 08.10.2018 calling upon the members of the Managing Committee to show cause as to why the Custodian should not be appointed under section 74D of the said Act, as the term of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Sangh was for a period of three years from the date of election as per the provision contained in the said Act and also as per the bye-laws of the petitioner-Sangh and therefore, the said term had come to an end on the expiry of three years on 22.07.2017. The petitioner-Sangh had challenged the said show-cause notice before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 16407 of 2018, however the same was withdrawn with a view to approach the respondent No. 1- District Registrar by filing reply to the said notice. The petitioners and other members of the Managing Committee thereafter filed a reply on 01.11.2018 to the said show-cause notice. The respondent no. The petitioners and other members of the Managing Committee thereafter filed a reply on 01.11.2018 to the said show-cause notice. The respondent no. 1 thereafter considering the said reply, passed the impugned order dated 22.11.2018 appointing respondent No. 2 as the Custodian of the petitioner-Sangh in exercise of powers conferred under section 74D of the said Act. 4. The respondent no. 1 having been served with the notice has filed affidavit-in-reply challenging the very maintainability of the petition and raising the preliminary objections as regards availability of efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioners under section 155 of the said Act. It has also been contended that the petition suffers from suppression of material facts inasmuch as, though the Custodian had taken over the charge of the petitioner-Sangh on 26.11.2018, and the petitioner No. 2 Tukarambhai Patel had also signed the Rojkam dated 26.11.2018 and the Chairman of the petitioner-Sangh had also put his signature on the communication dated 26.11.2018 of the Custodian taking charge of the petitioner-Sangh, the said facts were not disclosed in the petition. It has also been contended inter alia that as per the then existing provision contained in section 74C, the term of the elected members of the managing committee was three years. The said provision came to be amended by Gujarat Act No. 12/2015 dated 07.04.2015, which came into force with effect from 10.04.2015, by which the term of the elected members of the managing committee was amended as five years from the date of election. According to this respondent, the election of the managing committee of the petitioner-Sangh having taken place prior to the amendment i.e. on 24.06.2014, the members of the managing committee were entitled to hold office of the petitioner-Sangh only for a period of three years i.e. up to 23.07.2017 as per Section 74C(2) of the said Act prevalent at that time and also as per the bye-laws of the petitioner-Sangh. It is further contended that one Rajilaben Ramsinghbhai Padvi and others had sent a communication dated 04.09.2018 to the District Registrar, Tapi bringing to his notice that the term of the managing committee had already been over in July, 2017 and the election of the petitioner-Sangh was not conducted. It is further contended that one Rajilaben Ramsinghbhai Padvi and others had sent a communication dated 04.09.2018 to the District Registrar, Tapi bringing to his notice that the term of the managing committee had already been over in July, 2017 and the election of the petitioner-Sangh was not conducted. Therefore, the respondent No. 1- District Registrar had issued the notice on 08.10.2018 calling upon the members of the managing committee alongwith Chairman and Manager of the petitioner-Sangh to show cause as to why Custodian should not be appointed under section 74D of the said Act, and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. It is also contended that the respondent No. 2 Custodian had already taken over the charge on 26.11.2018 by executing Panchnama and the same was endorsed by both the petitioners, and that though the Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo, the petitioner No. 1 had called special general meeting on 01.12.2018 in utter disregard of the order passed by the Court. 5. The petitioners have filed affidavit-in-rejoinder repudiating the contentions raised by the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit-in-reply and reiterating that the order dated 26.11.2018 was served in the office of the petitioner no. 1, however the Chairman and Vice Chairman were not present in the office and therefore, it could not be said to have been received by the petitioners. The petitioners had also sought to tender one draft amendment seeking amendment in the petition on the same date when the affidavit-in-rejoinder was filed, however the same has not been granted by the Court as the petition was being heard on merits. In the proposed amendment, the petitioners had prayed for direction against the respondents to hold election of the managing committee of the petitioner-Sangh pursuant to the proposal submitted by the petitioner No. 1-Sangh on 07.12.2018. 6. At the outset, before dealing with the contentions, raised by the learned advocates for the parties, it may be stated that the petitioners have sought to challenge the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the respondent No. 1-District Registrar appointing the respondent no. 2 as the Custodian of the petitioner-Sangh in exercise of the powers conferred under section 74D of the said Act, without exhausting alternative remedy available to the petitioners under section 155 of the said Act. 2 as the Custodian of the petitioner-Sangh in exercise of the powers conferred under section 74D of the said Act, without exhausting alternative remedy available to the petitioners under section 155 of the said Act. As per section 155 of the said Act, the State Government is empowered to call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any matter of any officer subordinate to it for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such officer. Hence, there being an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners under the said Act, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of existence of alternative remedy alone. 7. There also appears to be disputed questions of facts involved in the petition as to whether the respondent No. 2-Custodian had taken over the charge of the petitioner-Sangh on the date of filing of the petition by the present petitioners. Though, it has been averred in the petition that the Custodian had not taken over the charge on 26.11.2018, the said fact has been seriously disputed by the respondent no. 1 in his affidavit in reply. Under the circumstances, it becomes doubtful as to the maintainability of the petition at the instance of the petitioners, who claim themselves to be the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the petitioner No. 1-Sangh. 8. Be that as it may. So far as the merits of the petition are concerned, it is not disputed that the election of the Managing Committee of the petitioner-Sangh had taken place on 23.06.2014 and the members were elected uncontested. Thereafter, Chairman and Vice Chairman were also elected uncontested on 22.07.2014 for a period of five years. At this juncture, it is required to be noted that undisputedly the relevant statutory provision contained in section 74C(2) prevailing on the date of election, read as under: "74C. Provision for conduct of elections of committees and officers of certain societies and term of office of members of committees.- (1) xxx ... xxx ... xxx (2). At this juncture, it is required to be noted that undisputedly the relevant statutory provision contained in section 74C(2) prevailing on the date of election, read as under: "74C. Provision for conduct of elections of committees and officers of certain societies and term of office of members of committees.- (1) xxx ... xxx ... xxx (2). When the election of all the members of the committee of any such societies held at the same time, the members elected on the committee at such general election shall hold office for a period of three years from the date on which the first meeting is held and shall continue in office until immediately before the first meeting of the members of the new committee." 9. Hence, according to the aforestated provision, the members elected on the committee at the general election had to hold the office for a period of three years from the date on which the first meeting was held and to continue the office until immediately before first meeting of the members of the new committee. It is also not disputed that as per the bye-laws of the petitioner-Sangh the term of the members of the Managing Committee was for a period of three years, which was in consonance with the said provision contained in section 74C(2) of the said Act at the relevant time. Therefore, it could be safely held that the election of the members of the Managing Committee held on 23.06.2014 and of the Chairman and Vice Chairman held on 22.07.2014 for a period of five years, was neither in consonance with the statutory provision contained in the Act nor in consonance with the bye-laws of the petitioner-Sangh. 10. The bone of contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. B.S. Patel for the petitioners was that the said election was not challenged by anybody either in the Court of law or before the concerned authority and therefore, the term of the Managing Committee could not be said to have been over till July, 2019. He also submitted that the District Registrar had acted at the instance of the political rival of the petitioners, and had illegally appointed Custodian vide the impugned order, though the term of the members of the managing committee had not expired. The Court does not find any substance in the said submissions of Mr. Patel. He also submitted that the District Registrar had acted at the instance of the political rival of the petitioners, and had illegally appointed Custodian vide the impugned order, though the term of the members of the managing committee had not expired. The Court does not find any substance in the said submissions of Mr. Patel. When Statute and the bye-laws of the Sangh provided that the term of the managing committee would be for a period of three years, the members of the Managing Committee could not hold the office in contravention of the said statutory provision and the bye-laws. It is true that section 74C(2) has been amended by the Gujarat Act No. 12/2015, whereby the term of the elected members of the managing committee has now been specified for a five years from the date of election, however, the said amendment has come into force on 10.04.2015 and therefore, could not be made applicable retrospectively. 11. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal position laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Letters Patent Appeal No. 204 of 2017 decided on 27.11.2017 relied upon by learned Advocate Mr. Patel to the effect that powers under section 74D of the said Act could be exercised by the District Registrar under two eventualities, viz. firstly, where a new committee of management is for any reason whatsoever, not elected before the expiry of the term of office of members of a committee of management of the society and secondly, the members of the committee though having been elected, had not started functioning within a period of three months. It may be noted that the term of office of the members of the committee of the management would mean the term as statutorily provided under the Act and not the term which the committee had decided dehors the Act and the bye-laws. 12. In the instant case, as stated hereinabove the term of the managing committee as per the extant section 74C of the said Act and as per the bye-laws was for a period of three years in consonance with the said provisions and therefore, the members of the managing committee of the petitioner-Sangh could not have been elected for a period of five years in June, 2014 as sought to be done by them. The said fact having come to the notice of the respondent no. 1-District Registrar, he had rightly issued show-cause notice on 08.10.2018 to the members of the managing committee of the petitioner-Sangh, and after considering their reply has passed the impugned order appointing the Custodian in exercise of powers conferred under section 74D of the said Act. Merely because somebody who allegedly belonged to the rival group of the petitioners, had written a letter to the respondent no. 1, and thereafter the respondent no. 1 had issued the show-cause notice, that fact itself would not make the impugned order vulnerable, more particularly when the petitioners and the members of Managing Committee could not have held the office dehors the prevalent statutory provisions and the bye-laws of the petitioner-Sangh. 13. There being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondent no. 1, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The ad-interim relief operating, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. Notice is discharged. FURTHER ORDER Request for stay of the order is rejected in view of the reasons given in the judgment.