JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner C/M Azad Cooperative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Society”) is a duly registered cooperative society under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 2. The last admitted election of the Committee of Management of the Society was held on 15.10.2016, as per its bye-laws for a period of five years. The term therefore was to expire on 14.10.2021. It appears that on 17.6.2021, the Additional Housing Commissioner exercising his powers under Section 35 read with Section 38 of the Act held that all the members of the Committee of Management had forfeited their rights to continue and, therefore, superseded the elected Committee of Management. Exercising his powers under Sections 29 (4-B) of the Act and under Rule 438 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), he further appointed a four member interim Committee consisting of various State officials. 3. On 2.1.2022, under the orders of the Chairman of the interim Committee of Management of the Society, Sri Pradeep Kumar Raman, ACM-1, Bareilly, on the basis of the resolution dated 20.12.2021(resolution no. 2) removed the Secretary Smt. Pushpa Singh, the petitioner no. 2. Also by the same order Sri Prempal Singh, son of Sri Mahendra Pal Singh (Sugarcane Observor, Godown Incharge), Cane Development Board, Chandpur was appointed as the Secretary of the Society. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri H.R. Mishra assisted by Sri K.M. Mishra submitted that the order dated 17.6.2021 passed under Section 38 of the Act was in breach of Rules 437 & 438 of the Rules read with Section 35 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the passage of five years from the last admitted election dated 15.10.2016, the term of the Committee of Management expired on 14.10.2021. In between, he submits that when the order dated 17.6.2021 was passed the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the provisions of Section 38 of the Act. 6. In between, he submits that when the order dated 17.6.2021 was passed the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the provisions of Section 38 of the Act. 6. Thereafter, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the interim Committee of Management of the Society was appointed on 17.6.2021 then, thereafter, its term expired after the passage of six months from the date of the appointment and he, therefore, submitted that the order which was passed on 2.1.2022 basing on the resolution dated 20.12.2021 was against the provisions of Section 29(4-D) as the interim Committee of Management which was constituted on 17.6.2021 lived its term till 17.12.2021 i.e. after the six months had expired from the date of the constitution of the interim Committee of Management. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon Section 29 (4-D) of the Act, the same is being reproduced here as under:- “29(4-D). The interim Committee appointed under sub-section (4B) shall cease to exist after the expiry of six months from the date of its appointment or reconstitution of the Management Committee after election thereof whichever is earlier.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a bare perusal of Section 29 (4-D) shows that the interim Committee of Management had ceased to exit after the expiry of six months from the date of its appointment and, therefore, even the resolution which was passed before the passing of the order dated 2.1.2022 on 20.12.2021 was without any jurisdiction. 8. Sri Nirankar Singh learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 filed a counter affidavit and questioned the authority of the petitioners to file the writ petition. He also submitted that if the resolution dated 20.12.2021 was being questioned then the petitioners had an alternative remedy of approaching the Registrar under Section 128 of the Act and under Section 128 the Registrar had power to annul any resolution of a cooperative society. 9. Learned counsel has submitted that the office bearers of the petitioners were removed on 17.6.2021 after due notice. He had submitted that for quite some time in the month preceding 17.6.2021 the Managing Committee of the Society had not been able to convene any meeting and the office bearers were neck deep in various embezzlements. 9. Learned counsel has submitted that the office bearers of the petitioners were removed on 17.6.2021 after due notice. He had submitted that for quite some time in the month preceding 17.6.2021 the Managing Committee of the Society had not been able to convene any meeting and the office bearers were neck deep in various embezzlements. He submits that with regard to functioning of the Committee, videography and photography was also done on 5.11.2020, 6.2.2021 and 9.4.2021 and, he, therefore, submits that when the members of the Committee of Management were deliberately absenting themselves then resorting to the powers of under Section 38 of the Act, the order dated 17.6.2021 was passed. 10. With regard to the argument of the petitioner that the interim Management Committee which was appointed on 17.6.2021 had outlived its life, learned counsel for the private respondent submitted that on 13.8.2021, the A.C.M. -II was transferred and the ACM, therefore, was substituted in his place and, therefore, it was a re-constituted Committee of Management and, therefore, the six months would be counted from the date of its reconstitution. He, therefore, submits that the resolution dated 20.12.2021 and the subsequent resolution dated 1.1.2022 were passed by a Committee of Management which had full authority to pass those resolutions. He also submits that the order dated 2.2.2022 which was passed by the Chairman of the interim Committee of Management on the basis of the resolution dated 20.12.2021 was absolutely in order and no interference was required. He still further submitted that even for the removal of the office bearers, specially, the Secretary, the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of filing an Appeal under Section 98 of the Act. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; the counsel for the private respondents Sri Nirankar Singh; Sri Narendra Kumar Giri for the Election Commission and Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra for the Additional Housing Commissioner/Additional Registrar, Uttar Pradesh Awas & Vikas Parishad (Cooperative Department), the Court is of the view that at this stage when the term of the Committee of Management had expired on 14.10.2021, no useful purpose would be served by adjudicating upon the fact as to whether the order dated 17.6.2021 was passed in accordance with law or not. The Court is of view that even after the passing of the order dated 17.6.2021, six months had expired on 16.12.2021. The Court is of view that even after the passing of the order dated 17.6.2021, six months had expired on 16.12.2021. Definitely as per the provisions of Sections 29(4), 29(4-A), 29(4-B) and 29(4-C) of the Act, the election ought to have been held after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. If, however, an interim Committee of Management had been appointed by the Registrar for the management of the Society then the term of the interim Committee of Management had also to come to an end on the expiry of the six months, from the date from such appointment. The Court, therefore, is of the view that the resolution dated 20.12.2021 and 1.1.2022 were without jurisdiction. The Court is also of the view that the order which was passed on 2.1.2022 was absolutely without any jurisdiction as the resolution dated 20.12.2021 itself on the basis of which the order dated 2.1.2022 was passed was a resolution which could not have been passed. For ready reference, we are reproducing Sections 29 (4) to 29(4-D) of the Act here as under:- “29(4). It shall be the duty of the Secretary or the Managing Director of the cooperative society as the case may be, to send to the Election Commission four months before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, a requisition for conducting the election and to furnish all such information as may be required by the election commission within such period of as may be fixed by it. (4-A) Due to any reason, whatsoever, if members of the Management Committee are not elected or could not get elected before expiry of its tenure then the Management Committee shall cease to exist after expiry of its term notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other provision of this Act, or the rules made thereunder or the bye-laws of the society. (4-B) After the Management Committee ceases to exist under sub section (4-A) an interim Management Committee shall as soon as possible be appointed by the Registrar for the Management of the Cooperative society in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of the society. The Registrar shall have power to change the members of the interim Management Committee or appoint a new interim Management Committee in place thereof. The Registrar shall have power to change the members of the interim Management Committee or appoint a new interim Management Committee in place thereof. (4-C) The interim Management Committee appointed under sub section (4-B) shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Management Committee under this Act subject to the directions given by the Registrar from time to time. (4-D) The interim Committee appointed under sub-section (4-B) shall cease to exist after the expiry of six months from the date of its appointment or reconstitution of the Management Committee after election thereof whichever is earlier. 12. Nowhere from the above provisions which have been quoted above can it be gleaned out that upon the change of any member of the interim Committee of Management would the term of the Committee of Management commence from that date. Under such circumstances, the following facts become clear: I. The term of the interim Committee of Management which was constituted on 17.6.2021 expired on 17.12.2021. II. On the date when the ACM II was replaced by the ACM, there was no fresh reconstitution of the interim Committee of Management but it was only a change which had been brought in to make the interim Committee of Management functional. 13. Under such circumstances, we hold that the resolutions dated 20.12.2021 and 1.1.2022 passed by the respondent no. 4 were passed without any jurisdiction. Since the Court holds that the resolutions were passed without any authority of law, we do not consider it appropriate to suggest that the petitioners ought to have approached the alternative forum. Since now, we have held that the resolutions were passed without any authority of law, we also hold that the order dated 2.1.2022 passed by the respondent no.6 was passed without any authority of law. The resolutions dated 20.12.2021 and 1.1.2022 and the order dated 2.1.2022 are quashed and are set-aside. 14. On the date, when the judgement was reserved there was a statement given by the Election Commission that no election till that date had taken place. 15. Under such circumstances, we further direct that if the elections have till date not taken place, they be held forthwith in accordance with law. 16. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands allowed.