JUDGMENT
Hakeem, J.
1. Although this matter is posted for orders, by consent it is taken up for admission and disposed of by the following order:
2. The appellant was the petitioner in the Writ Petition. He was elected as Director of the respondent-2 Society on 31.12.1991. Thereafter the petitioner was elected as President in the election of the office bearers of the Society held on 16.1.1992. In the Writ Petition he has challenged the validity of the notice dated 7.7.1992 issued by the first respondent proposing to hold elections of President as the sole office bearer of the Society. The proposed election which was to be held on 15.7.1992 was adjourned to 22.7.1992. However, by virtue of the interim stay granted in the Writ Petition the election was not hold on that day. Consequently, the petitioner continues to hold the office of the President.
3. The Writ Petition was dismissed mainly on the ground that notice of the proposed election by itself is not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner is aggrieved it is open for him to challenge the election before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
4. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Appellant submitted in the first instance that the question of challenging the election does not arise because he has mainly challenged the legality of the proposed election before the expiry of the statutory term, which, according to him, expires only on the completion of one year from the date of his election, i.e., on 15.1.1993, in view of the provisions of Section 28A(4) of the Act.
5. The question that arises for consideration is whether Section 28A(4) of the act admits of construction sought to be placed upon the same. Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 28A provides as under:
“(3) Notwithstanding, anything contained in this Act, the rules and the bye-laws of any co-operative society, the term of office of the Committee of a co-operative society shall be three cooperative years and the elections shall be held for the entire committee other than the nominated members.
Provided that if elections to the Committee or part of the committee of any co-operative society has already been held on or after 1st July, 1983 in accordance with the bye-laws of such society, the terms of the committee of such co-operative society, shall also be three co-operative years.
Explanation – For the purpose of this Section, where elections to a committee have been held in the middle of a co-operative year, for purpose of computing the term of office of the committee, the remaining part of the co-operative year shall be deemed to be a co-operative year.
4. The members of the committee shall, every year, elect from among themselves the officers of the co-operative society. The election for the office bearers shall be by ballot.”
‘Co-operative year’ is defined under Section 2(d-1) of the Act as follows:
“Co-operative year” means the year ending with the thirtieth day of June or, in the case of any co-operative society or class of co-operative societies the accounts of which are made up to any other date, with the previous sanction of the Registrar, the year ending with such date.”
It is pertinent to note that the term “year” has not been defined in the Act itself. However the definition “year” as defined in the General Clauses Act reads as under:
“3(43) “Year” shall mean a year reckoned according to the British Calendar.”
6. The respective definition in both the Acts are applicable unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context of the provision. It is not the case of the petitioner that the expression ‘year’ mentioned in Sub-section (4) of Section 28A refers to the calendar year. However, the specific stand taken by the appellant is that ‘one year’ mentioned in the provision denotes the period of one year calculated from the date when the office bearer is elected. As such the appellant is entitled to continue as the President for the full term of one year. According to the learned Counsel, the expression “Co-operative year” appearing in the earlier part of Section 28A is indicative of the intention of the Legislature that the term fixed cannot expire in the middle of the year, notwithstanding the fact that election to the Committee takes place in the middle of the co-operative year. It seems to us that having regard to the object and to give a harmonious interpretation the Section has to be read as a whole. Otherwise it would lead to an’anamalous situation.
7. In the instant case election of the committee, which ought to have been held on 30.6.1991, having been postponed by the Government, was held in the middle of the co-operative year on 31.12.1991. Consequently, the election of the President came to be held on 16.1.1992. According to the interpretation sought to be placed upon Section 28A of the Act, the appellant would continue to hold the office of the President till 15.1.1993, in which event the election to the next President has to be held on or after 16.1.1993. Such situation can be hardly conceived or intended by the provisions of Section 28A of the Act. Having regard to the relevant provisions read with explanation to Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 28A of the Act the co-operative year, which can be shorter than one year, the only possible interpretation that can be given to the expression “year” is the co-operative year, and not one full year.
In that view of the matter there is no merit in this Appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.