JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. The respondent No. 6 of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8375 of 2002 has filed this review petition for reviewing the judgment and order dated 16.3.2002. The review petition has been filed not on account of any error in the judgment but on account of subsequent amendment in the Legislation.
2. The election to elect the Committee of Management of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur, which is an Urban Cooperative Bank and is governed by the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act was held on 28.12.1998 and a Board of Directors was elected. The Board of Directors in its meeting held on 29.12.1998 elected the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the relevant time, provided that the term of every Committee of Management shall be three years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee. Sub-section (3) of Section 29 provides that election to reconstitute the Committee of Management of a Cooperative Society shall be completed at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the existing Committee of Management. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U. P., fixed 21.12.2001, as the date for holding the election of Committee of Management and 22.12.2001 as the date for sending the delegates to other societies. In accordance with the said programme, the election to constitute the new Committee of Management was held on 21.12.2001 and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman thereof were elected on 22.12.2001. Two days thereafter, i.e., on 24.12.2001, the Governor of U. P. promulgated the U. P. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance. 2001 (U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001) by which Sub-section (2) of Section 29 was amended and the term of Committee of Management was extended to five years.
3. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 29 of the Act (after its amendment by U. P. Act No. 19 of 1998), read as follows ;
"(2) (a) The term of every Committee of Management shall be three years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee.
(b) The provisions of Clause (a) shall apply also to a Committee of Management in existence on the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Second Amendment) Act, 1998 and to the elected members of such Committee.
(c) The term of a Committee of Management, which has completed, on or before the date of the commencement of the Act referred to in Clause (b), the period of three years from the date of its constitution, and the term of its elected members, shall expire on such commencement.
(3) Election to reconstitute the Committee of Management of a cooperative society shall be completed in the prescribed manner under the superintendence, control and direction of the Registrar at least fifteen days before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and the members so elected shall replace the Committee of Management whose term expires under Sub-section (2) :
Provided that, where for any extraordinary circumstance, the election of the members of the Committee of Management has not been completed, or could not be completed, the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded, extend the term of the outgoing Committee of Management so, however, that any single extension does not exceed three months and the total extension does not exceed six months and it shall be the duty of the Registrar to get the Committee of Management reconstituted before the expiry of the term so extended and such Committee of Management shall replace the outgoing Committee of Management even though its extended term may not have expired."
4. Section 2 of U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001, which was promulgated on 24.12.2001, reads as follows :
"2. In Section 29 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, for Sub-section (2) the following sub-section shall be substituted namely :
(a) the term of every Committee of Management shall be five years and the term of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of such Committee.
(b) the provision of Clause (a) shall apply also to a Committee of Management in existence on the date of the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 and to the elected members of such Committee."
5. The Committee of Management of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd. and its Chairman Ram Singh then filed the writ petition praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent authorities to permit the petitioners Committee of Management to function for a period of 5 years, i.e., till 28.12.2003 in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 (2) of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act as amended by Ordinance No. 27 of 2001 and not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the petitioners Committee of Management till the expiry of the aforesaid period i.e., 28.12.2003. The writ petition was opposed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that fresh elections having taken place, on 21.12.2001 and respondent No. 6 having been elected as Chairman thereof on 22.12.2001 prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance, it was this newly elected Committee of Management which was entitled to function. It was also submitted that the newly elected Committee of Management having come into existence on 21.12.2001, it will get the benefit of amending Ordinance and not the petitioners Committee of Management.
6. The combined effect of original Sub-section (2) (a) and Sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the Act was that the term of Committee of Management was three years and the newly elected Committee of Management could replace the earlier Committee of Management only after expiry of its term. The newly elected Committee of Management could not replace the already existing Committee of Management by merely holding the election before the expiry of the term. It was held that the amending Ordinance having come into force on 24.12.2001, which was prior to the expiry of the term of the petitioners which would have come to an end on 28.12.2001 and, consequently, they would be entitled to get the benefit of the Ordinance and had got a right to function for a period of_5 years. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued commanding the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the functioning of petitioner No. 1 as Committee of Management and petitioner No. 2 as Chairman of Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur till 28.12.2003.
7. The review petition has been filed on 10.5.2002 on the ground that U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001 has lapsed as it has not been replaced by a Legislative enactment and, consequently, the amendments made to Section 29 (2) of the Act have ceased to be operative. The result thereof would be that the term of the Committee of Management would stand restored to 3 years as it existed prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance and, consequently, the petitioners are not entitled to function after the Ordinance has ceased to be operative.
8. The learned standing counsel was directed to file an affidavit giving the stand of the State. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri H.N. Misra on 8.7.2002 on behalf of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. It is averred therein that the Joint Secretary of the Co-operative Department of the U. P. Government had sent a communication to Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. on 3.6.2002, informing him that the Ordinance promulgated on 24.12.2001, had lapsed and had ceased to be operative and, consequently, necessary follow up action be taken regarding the term of the Committee of Management of the Cooperative Societies. A copy of this communication has been filed as Annexure-C.A. 2 to the counter-affidavit. Prior to this, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P., had also sent a circular to all the District Assistant Registrars and Regional Deputy Registrars of U. P. on 23.4.2002 that the Ordinance promulgated on 24.12.2001, had lapsed as no Act had been passed by the Legislature and, therefore, the term of the Committee of Management of a Cooperative Society shall revert back to 3 years in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has not placed any material on record to contradict the aforesaid stand taken in the counter-affidavit that the Ordinance has lapsed as it was not followed by any legislative enactment or another Ordinance. Therefore, we have to proceed on the basis that the provisions of U. P. Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 27 of 2001 (U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001) have lapsed and have ceased to be operative.
9. Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 (applicant in the review petition) has submitted that the effect of the lapsing of the Ordinance would be that the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, as they stood prior to promulgation of the Ordinance, will again become operative and the term of the Committee of Management would revert back to 3 years. Since the petitioners' Committee of Management had been elected on 28.12.1998, its term came to an end on 28.12.2001 and, therefore, it is not entitled to function after lapsing of the Ordinance. It has been urged that the direction issued in the judgment and order dated 16.3.2002 that the Committee of Management is entitled to function for a period of 5 years i.e., till 28.12.2003 has no legal basis now and the same should be reviewed and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has, on the other hand, submitted that the effect of the amendment by U. P. Ordinance No. 27 of 2001 was that the term of the Committee of Management got extended to 5 years and it acquired a legal right to function for the aforesaid period and the lapsing of the Ordinance cannot have the effect of taking away the right which had got vested with it. The submission is that even after lapsing of the Ordinance, the right which has accrued in favour of the writ petitioners to function for 5 years cannot be set at naught as no such enactment has been made which may curtail their term of 5 years.
10. The main question which has to be examined is what is the effect of the lapsing of the Ordinance by which the term of the Committee of Management had got extended from 3 years to 5 years. Shri Shashi Nandan has placed strong reliance on Section 6A of General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act 10 of 1897), which lays down that where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment by which the text of any Central Act or Regulation was amended by the express omission, insertion or substitution of another matter, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal. He has submitted that the effect of this provision is that the repeal of an amending Statute does not repeal such portions of the Statute as have been already incorporated into another Statute and the Act directing incorporation may be repealed, but the incorporated section or sections still operate in the former Act. According to Shri Shashi Nandan, the textual amendment became a part of the amended Act and the repeal of the amending Act does not affect the textual, amendment which are so Incorporated in the principal Act and, therefore, the lapsing of the Ordinance would not have the effect of making the term of the Committee of Management as 3 years and the same would continue to be 5 years notwithstanding the fact that the Ordinance has lapsed and has ceased to be operative. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the applicant in the review petition has submitted that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act. 1897, can have no application here as the case in hand is not governed by any Central Act or Regulation nor any amendment had been effected to any Central Act or Regulation. He has referred to Sections 6, 6A, 6B, 6C and 30 of U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 and has urged on their basis that the amendment made to Section 29 shall also cease to operate on account of lapsing of the Ordinance.
11. Section 6 of U. P. General Clauses Act is almost paramateria with Section 6 of General Clauses Act. 1897 (Central Act). Section 30 (b) of U. P. General Clauses Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply in relation to an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution as they apply in relation to Uttar Pradesh Acts, made by State Legislature. Section 6A of this Act makes provision for the time of expiration of temporary Uttar Pradesh Acts and Section 6B makes provision regarding the effect of expiration of provisions of such Act. Section 6C is material and the same is being reproduced below :
"6C. Repeal or expiration of law-making textual amendments in other laws.--(1) Except as provided by Sub-section (2), where any Uttar Pradesh Act amends the text of any Uttar Pradesh Act or Regulation by the express omission, insertion or substitution of any matter, and the amending enactment is subsequently repealed, the repeal shall not affect the continuance of any such amendment made by the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of such repeal.
(2) Where any such amendment of text is made by any temporary Uttar Pradesh Act or by an Ordinance or by any law made in exercise of the power of the State Legislature by the President or other authority referred to in Sub-clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 357 of the Constitution, and such Act, Ordinance or other law ceases to operate without being re-enacted (with or without modifications), the amendment of text made thereby shall also cease to operate."
12. Sub-section (2) of Section 6C clearly lays down that where amendment of text of any Uttar Pradesh Act is made by an Ordinance and such an Ordinance ceases to operate without being re-enacted, the amendment of text made thereby shall also cease to operate. This provision squarely applies to the facts of the present case as amendment to Section 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act had been made by an Ordinance and the said Ordinance has ceased to operate without being re-enacted. Therefore, in view of this statutory provision, the amendment made to Sub-section (2) to Section 29 shall also cease to operate. The contention of Shri Shashi Nandan that the amendment made by the Ordinance stood permanently engrafted in the present Act and the lapse of the Ordinance could not affect the amendment so made, therefore, cannot be accepted. The consequence which follows is that the term of the Committee of Management which had got extended to 5 years would again revert back to 3 years.
13. Both sides have also placed reliance on Constitution Bench judgment rendered in State of Orissa v. Bhupendra Kumar Bose and Ors., AIR 1962 SC 945, where the scope of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897, was examined in considerable detail. It was held therein that it would not be reasonable to hold that the general rule about the effect of the expiration of a temporary Act is inflexible and admits of no exception. It was also observed that what the effect of the expiration of a temporary Act would be must depend upon the nature of the right or obligation resulting from the provisions of the temporary Act and upon their character whether the said right and liability are enduring or not. In para 21 of the judgment, the following observations in Steavenson v. Oliver, (1841) 151 ER 1024 at pp. 1026-1027, were quoted with approval :
"There is a difference between temporary statutes and statues which are repealed : the latter (except so far as they relate to transactions already completed under them) become as if they had never existed, but with respect to the former, the extent of the restrictions imposed, and the duration of the provisions, are matters of construction."
It was further observed that in considering the effect of the expiration of a temporary Statute, it would be unsafe to lay down any inflexible rule. If the right created by the Statute is of an enduring character and has vested in the person, that right cannot be taken away because the statute by which it was created has expired. In para 22, the following observation in Craies on Statutes were quoted with approval :
"If an Act which repeals an earlier Act is itself only a temporary Act, the general rule is that the earlier Act is revived after the temporary Act is spent ; and inasmuch as ex-hypothesi the temporary Act expires and is not repealed, the rules of construction laid down by Sections 11(1) and 38 (2) of the Interpretation Act, 1889, do not apply. But there will be no revival if it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to repeal the earlier Act absolutely."
14. Shri Shashi Nandan has also placed reliance on another Constitution Bench decision in T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A. P., (1985) 3 SCC 198, where the constitutional- validity of Andhra Pradesh Abolition of Posts and Part-time Village Officers Ordinance, 1984, promulgated by the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution by which the post of part-time village officers came to be abolished and provision was made for the appointment of Village Assistants. It was held that when the Ordinance ceased to operate as a result of disapproval of State Legislature, the Ordinance would not become void ab initio and there would be no revival of the posts which were abolished and the persons holding that posts prior to the Ordinance cannot be deemed to be continuing to hold those posts. It was held that by virtue of Section 3 all the posts of part-time village officers stood abolished and the petitioners therein ceased to be employees of the State Government and these matters became accomplished on that date and were completed events. It was further held that even if the Ordinance was assumed to have ceased to operate from a subsequent date by reason of Clause (2) of Article 213, the effect of Section 3 of the Ordinance was Irreversible except by express legislation. The principle enunciated in the authority cited by learned counsel is that if the matters become accomplished fact and were completed events and became closed matters, then the repeal of the enactment or the lapsing of the Ordinance will have no effect. On account of the amending Ordinance, the writ petitioners became entitled to continue beyond 3 years and upto a period of 5 years but, this did not become a completed event and a closed matter. The period beyond 3 years was still running. With the lapsing of the Ordinance, the right to continue beyond 3 years has ceased to exist. The petitioners' original term of 3 years having expired, they have no legal right to function.
15. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioners have now no legal right to continue to function as Committee of Management and Chairman respectively of Nagar Sahkart Bank Ltd., Gorakhpur. The review petition is accordingly allowed and the direction issued by the Judgment and order dated 16.3.2002, permitting the writ petitioners to continue to function till 28.12.2003 is recalled.
16. It is made clear that this order by itself would not invalidate the official lawful duties performed by the writ petitioners subsequent to 28.12.2001 till date.