ORDER
Shyamasundar, J.
1. The petitioner, Member of a Co-operative Society, seeks in this Writ Petition that the Election scheduled for 27.10.1991 should be struck down and a Writ of Prohibition issued, the first respondent placed under restraint, precluding him from holding elections on 27.10.1991. The petitioner is not one of the candidates or one of those whose candidature was turned down, disabling him from contesting the election scheduled to be held on 27.10.1991.
2. After having heard Mr. D.S.Ramachandra Reddy for the petitioner for a considerable length of time, what I have been able to gather from his submissions is that the petitioner is interested in the continuance of the old Committee because of the situation said to have been caused with the total rout of all the candidates who had filed nominations to contest the election, with the sole exception of one person, who I find, is not made a party to this Writ Petition, with the result, Mr. Reddy says one man is going to be declared elected unopposed on 27.10.1991 and thereafter that person, in virtue of having become a Member of the Managing Committee of the Society, will assume office, which would result in the ousting of existing Managing Committee. But the point of Mr. Reddy is that, notwithstanding the election of that one person as Member of the Managing Committee, the Managing Committee will not have been duly constituted because, under the Statute and the Bye-laws, the strength of the Managing Committee as fixed is nine and for a two-third’s majority needed for effective functioning, it would require atleast seven people to man the Managing Committee. It is pointed out now that the whole flock consisted of only one person, in the circumstances, a Managing Committee in the eye of law is non est. The apprehension of the petitioner in such circumstances is, the old Committee would be forced to go out of office and there being virtually no new Committee, the Society-would be placed probably under an Administrator for some time. Counsel says, in this manner the democratic process would be stultified and therefore submits election scheduled for the 27th October 1991 should somehow be stopped.
3. I am hard put to accept this contention for more than one reason. One person will probably be declared duly elected for the simple reason there is no contest at all. The people who aspire to contest the elections and have been disabled from contesting the same because of lack of qualification, have not been making any grievance of that circumstance before me. As a matter of fact, none of them have chosen to join issue in this matter. But the petitioner, motivated by the sole desire of continuing the democratic heritage of the Society, according to Counsel, seeks to stop the declaration of announcement of poll results on 27.10.1991. Apart from the fact that the legitimate consequence of the election process in which there has been no flaw at all, cannot be interrupted by this Court, the apprehension that the old Committee would become functus officio the moment that one man who is likely to be elected unopposed on 27.10.1991 assumes office, appears to be not very tenable. I say so for two reasons. In this connection, my attention was invited to Section 29A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) which stipulates when term of office of elected members commences, which reads thus:-
“29A COMMENCEMENT OF TERM OF OFFICE –
(1) The term of office of the elected members of a committee shall commence on the date immediately after the expiry of the term of office of the out going members of such committee or on the date the newly elected members assume office.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules or the Bye-laws of a co-operative society, the committee shall be deemed to be duly constituted when not less than two-thirds of the elected members or not less than the number specified in the bye-laws to form a quorum, whichever is less, is available to function as members of the committee after the annual election.
(3) The committee deemed to be constituted under Sub-section (2) shall be competent to exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the committee of the co-operative society.
(4) (5) (6) xxx xxx xxx
A reading of the above provision makes it clear and that with particular reference to Sub-section (2) of Section 29A, a Committee of Management shall be deemed to have been duly constituted by not less than two-thirds of the Members or not less than the number of Members specified in the bye-laws to form a quorum after annual election. In other words, depending on the strength of the Managing Committee as fixed under the Bye-laws or the Statute, a Managing Committee, to be effective, must atleast have two-thirds of the Members thereof, being elected at the annual elections. Therefore, one cannot envisage a Managing Committee without two-thirds of the full complement of members being represented on the Managing Committee. Besides, Rule 13 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960 in Chapter IV under the Caption ‘MANAGEMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES” also throws some light on this matter. Clause 3 of that Proviso reads as follows:-
“13. ELECTION OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE BY GENERAL BODY:
(1) (2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) The election of the members of the committee shall be held on or before the date specified in the bye-laws, tor the expiry of the term of office of the members. If no such date is specified in the bye-laws, the term of office of the members of the Committee shall be deemed to have expired at the time of the annual general meeting and the election of the new members shall be held at such annual general meeting:
Provided that the committee whose term of office is deemed to so expire, shall continue in office till the new committee is elected and shall thereafter hand over charge of the office to such new committee.”
I will advert only to the above Proviso, which if read in tandem with Section 29A (1) and (2), makes it clear that the old Committee, even if its term has expired, will continue till the new Committee is elected, which means, till a new Committee with atleast two-thirds of the strength fixed for constituting a Managing Committee is available and exists. Till that eventuality occurs, the old Committee will continue and it is only thereafter, the old Committee will fade out and not before. The position therefore, is even if on 27.10.1991 one person is declared elected, that person cannot, like the lane swallow which cannot make a summer, make the old Managing Committee extinct, and therefore no occasion will arise for it to transfer all power before walking out. If this be the appropriate position in law, I see little reason for the apprehension expressed by the petitioner, the moment that one man is declared elected, the old Committee will have to go out of office. Otherwise, I see no merit in this Writ Petition which for the foregoing reasons fails and is rejected.