- (1.) OM Prakash, J. Both these writ petitions involving a common question of law which were heard together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE short question for consideration in these writ petitions is as to what is the term of the office of the Committee of Management of the Ordnance Equipment Factory Prarambhik Sahkari Bank Ltd. admittedly, a co-operative society. Rule 445 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules 1968 (Rule, briefly) as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 1985 states that except as otherwise provided in Rules 406, 433 and 435, the term of the Committee of Management of a Co operative Society shall be three years and that the term of the office of the elected members of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of the Committee of Management. Rule 445 was earlier amended by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Twentieth Amendment) Rules, 1981. In the year 1981 before amendment Rule 445 existed as follows ; "except as otherwise provided in Rules 406, 433 and 435, the term of the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society shall be three years. The term of the office of an elected member of the Committee of Management shall be co-terminus with the term of the Committee of Management. " In the year 1981, the aforesaid Rule was amended as follows : "except as otherwise provided in Rules 406, 433 and 435, the term bf the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society shall be three Co-operative years. The term of the office of the elected members of the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society shall be co-terminus with the term of the Committee of Management. " 4; From the above reproduction of Rule 445, it is manifest that prior to the amendment in the year 1981, the term of the office of the Committee of Management was three years. After the amendment, the words "three years" were substituted by the words "three co-operative years". Again by virtue of the amendment made in the year 1985, the term of the Committee of Management was made three years. 5. Section 2 clause (i) of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (Act, for short) was amended by the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1989. By virtue of amended Section 2 clause (i) 'co operative years' means the year commencing on the first day of April and ending on 31st day of March next following. Prior to the Amending Act of 1989, Section 2 clause (i) of the Act reads as follows : "co-operative year means the year commencing on the first day of July and ending on the thirtieth day of June next following. " 8. Sri R. N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for Shyam Naraih Shukla who has filed writ petition No. 24599 of 1994 urged that the first year of the Committee of Management of the aforesaid Co-operative Bank which was admittedly, elected on 7-12-1991, ended on 31st March, 1992 in view of the Amending Act, 1989 and that the full term of three years had come to an end on 31st March 1994 and thereafter the Committee of Management was not entitled to continue. On the other had, the submission of Sri Burman learned counsel for the Committee of Management is that after the amendment made during the year 1985 the term of the Committee of Management is three years simpliciter and not three co- operative years within the meaning of Rule. 445. His submission is that the word 'year' having not been defined either under the Act or under the Rules, the Court may take recourse to the defini tion of the word 'year' as given under Section 4, sub-section (50) of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904. Under Section 4 sub-section (50) of the said General Clauses Act, 'year' shall mean a year reckoned according to the British calendar which is from January to December. Sri Burman, therefore, argued that the term of the Committee of Management would come to an end on 6th December 1994 and not before. 7. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the term of the Committee of Management will be computed according to the British calendar as urged on behalf of the Committee of Management or according to the financial year as urged on behalf of Sri Shyam Narain Shukla, petitioner in one of the writ petition. Rule 445 as amended in 1985 provides that the term of the Committee of Management of a Co-operative Society shall be three years. The word 'year' has not been defined either under the Act or under the Rules and therefore it is nothing but appropriate to take recourse to Section 4 sub section (50) of the U. P. General Clauses Act, 1904 which defines the word 'year' meaning as the year reckoned according to the British calendar. If the term of three years is reckoned as per British calendar then that would come to an end on 6th December, 1994. We see no force in the submission of Sri Upadhyay that it is the financial year and not the year as per the British calendar which is relevant for reckoning the term of the Committee of Manage ment, Prior to the amendment made during the year 1981, Rule 445 set out the term of the Committee of Management as three years which was then subs tituted by three Co-operative years. Again Rule 445 was amended in the year 1985 and then the words "three Co- operative years" were substituted by the words "three years". By the amendment made in the year 1985, the subordi nate legislation relegated to the pre 1981 Amendment position. The amend ments made by subordinate legislation in the years 1981 and 1985 were signi ficant. The words three Co- operative years and three years' cannot be synonymous in any way and they connote definite meaning. Co-operative year before the amendment of 1989 commenced from 1st July and ended on 30th June in a year. The word 'year' without the pro-fix co-operative as introduced by the amendment of 1985 in Rule 445, cannot be said to be the year begining from 1st July and ending on 30th June. 8. The submission of Sri Upadhyay is that the amendment of 1985 made in Rule 445 overreaches the provisions as contained in Section 32 of the Act and, therefore, the same is invalid, This submission is devoid of any merit, inasmuch as Section 32 does not lay down the term of the Committee of Management but sub-section (1) of Section 32 simply provides that the meeting of the general body of a Co-operative Society shall be held once in a Co-opera tive year within such period as may be prescribed for the purposes, enumerated in clauses (a) to (h ). When Section 32 does not stipulate the term of the Committee of Management, it cannot be said that amendment of 1985 made in Rule 445 substituting the words 'three co-operative year 'by the words' 'three year' is illegal. Such amendment has not over stepped or violated any statutory provision. Finding it difficult to support his contention that the financial year and not the year as per the British calendar is germane to reckon the term of the Committee of Management, ;sri Upadhyay made a submission- no doubt full of ingenuity-that Rule 445 as amended in 1985 being inconsis tent to the bye-laws is illegal and inoperative. Our attention has been drawn to the bye-laws of the Ordnance Equipment Factory Prarambhik Sahkari Bank Ltd. , Kanpur. Such bye-laws referred to three co-operative years which was the term of the Committee of Management after and before the amendments made in Rule 445 in the years 1981 and 1985. It is not shown to us as to when the bye-laws being relied on during the arguments by Sri Upadhyay were made and whether the bye-laws relating to the term of the Committee of Management continued to be in force even after the amendment of 1985 in Rule 445. Assuming that the bye-laws continued to refer to the term of three co operative years, the question that arises for consideration is whether the bye-laws can override the provisions of Rule 445 of the Rules, which are statutory in nature. Sub-section (1) of Section 130 of the Act provides that the State Government may make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Section 130 clause (ii) states that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the power under sub-section (i), rules to be made under this section, may provide for the matters in respect of which a Co-operative Society shall or may make bye-laws. From this it is manifest that the rules to be framed under Section 130 by the State Government, may specify the field for making the bye-laws can be made only in the matters relating to a Co-operative Society as specified by the State Government, that is, the rule making authority. Rule 13 falling in Chapter III of the Rules provides that the Registrar may frame model bye-laws for each class of society or societies. Rule 14 states that the model bye-laws framed by the Registrar, may be adopted by such Society with such modification, if any, as may be considered necessary by the Society having regard to its requirement. Rule 15 which is more significant for the purposes of instant writ petitions, mandates that the bye-laws of a Co-operative Society shall subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules cover the matters enumerased in clauses (i) to clause (xxv) therein. From Rule 15, it is abundantly clear that the bye-laws of a Co-operative Society shall be subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules. It means that the bye-laws cannot be kept on a higher pedestal than the Rules. The model bye-laws to be framed by the Registrar being subject to the Act and the Rules cannot lay down anything contrary to the Rules. We have already pointed out that Rule 445 clearly sets out three years being the term of the Committee of Management. Three co-operative years and three years are not just the same but different connotations under the law. If Rule 445 provides three years as the term of the Committee of Management, the bye-laws cannot provide the term of the Committee of Management different from the term provided under the Rules and if the bye-laws provide the term of a Co-operative Society contrary to the Rules, then the Rules and not the bye-laws would prevail. In short, the bye-laws being subject to the Rules cannot override the Rules. The bye-laws to the extent they are inconsistent to the Rules, will remain inoperative and unenforceable. 9. Rules, Regulations, Schemes, Bye-laws, orders made under Statutory powers are all comprised in delegated legislation. Subordinate legislation is made by the person or body by virtue of the power conferred by the statute. The bye-laws are made in the main by local authorities or similar bodies or by statutory or other undertakings for regulating the conduct of the persons within their area or resorting to their undertakings. Subordinate legislation have if validly made, full force and effect of a statute. But that does not mean that authority empowered to frame bye-laws Is free to make by-laws contrary to the rules. Infact, the matters for which bye-laws may be framed are specified by the rule-making authority and the bye-laws framed by a given authority, are subject to the Rules and the Act. Authority empowered to frame the bye-laws cannot cover the field which is not earmarked to it. When Rule 445 clearly provides the term of the Committee of Management and when Rule 15 does not specifically permit the Registrar to frame bye-laws over and again in respect of the term of the Committee of Management, the Registrar is not empowered at all to frame bye-laws as to the term of the Committee of Management, let alone from the bye-laws which are inconsistent. The reason is not far to seek as to why a matter relating to the term of the Committee of Management is not specified under Rule 15 of the Rules. When Rule 445 already lays down the term of the Committee of Management, it was neither expedient nor necessary to confer such powers again on the Registrar to frame bye-laws in regard to the term of the Committee of Management. This being so, the term of the Committee of Management will be the one as provided under Rule 445 and not that which is inconsistently provided under the bye-laws. 10. There is nothing on the record to show that for smooth and con venient functioning of the Bank, three co-operative years and not three years will be necessary and, therefore, the bye-law specially provides three co operative years being the term of the Committee of Management. What appears to us is that the bye-laws provided three co-operative years as the terms of the Committee of Management when it was consistent to the Rules and that no follow up action was there after the amendment of 1985 when the term of three co-operative years was substituted by three years. 11. In support of his contention that the financial year and not the year according to the British calendar will be the basis of reckoning the term of the Committee of Management, Sri Upadhyay relied on Sri Ram Pyare Chowdhry and another v. State ofu. P. and others, AIR 1982 SC 831. In fact this question did not arise in Ram Pyare Chowdhry (supra) and the facts of that case quite different and, therefore, the ratio of that case cannot be applied to the writ petitions in hand. In Ram Pyare Chowdhry (supra), election of the Committee of Management was held on 11-9-1978 but the result on account of injunction granted by the Court was declared on 28-1-1980. The office bearers were elected on 29-1- 1980. The Registrar had issued a tele printer massage declaring that the term had come to an end on 30-6-1981. Amendment in Rule 445 having been brought in by the notification dated June 30, 1981 substituting the term of three years by three co-operative years (each co-operative year being analogous to financial year), the Court held that the term of the Committee of Management would commence from 1-7-1979 and end on 30-6-1980 and, therefore, the term of throe years would expire on 30-6-1982. From these facts, it is amply clear that in Sri Ram Pyare Chowdhry (supra), the question for consideration was not the one whether the term of the Committee of Management would be reckoned as per the year according to British calendar or as per the Co-operative year analogous to financial year. This authority is, therefore, misplaced by Sri Upadhyay. 12. For the reasons, we reject the contention of Sri Upadhyay and accept the contention of Sri Burman. 13. Admitted facts are that election of the Committee of Management of the Co-operative Society in question was held on 7-12-1991. Respondent No. 3 being under the erroneous impression that the term of the Committee of Management ended on 30th June, 1994 in view of the co-operative year as denned prior to the amendment of 1985, he passed an order dated 1-7-1992 (Annexure 2 to the first writ petition) appointing one Sri Virendra Sahu Dixit as Administrator of the Society. When he realised the mistake that the bye-laws are subject to the Rules and that according to the Rules three years would come to an end on 6th December, 1994, respondent No. 3 passed impugned order dated 13-7-1994 (Annexure 6 to the first writ petition) cancelling the order dated 1-7-1994 and thereby enabling the Committee of Management to continue to function. It is then Sri Shyam Narain Shukla who is a member of the Ordnance Equipment Factory Prarambhik Sahkari Bank Ltd. , Kanpur Nagar, filed the first writ petition for quashing impugned order dated 13-7-1994 (Annexure 6 to that writ petition ). Second writ petition was filed by the Committee of Management in queer circumstances. By order dated 28-7-1994, a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Om Prakash, J.) was a member passed an interim order that the Administrator will continue to function until further orders or until the election of the Com- mitte of Management is held whichever is earlier. This interim order, in short, stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 13-7-1994. Giving effect to the interim order dated 28-7-1994 the District Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 3-8-1994 (Annexure 8 to the second writ petition) enabl ing the Administrator to function. Instead of making an application for vacating the interim order dated 28- 7-1994, the Committee of Management which was respondent No. 4 in the first writ petition, hastened to file the second writ petition for quasing order dated 3-8-1994 passed by the District Assistant Registrar giving effect to the Court's interim order dated 28-7-1994. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Committee of Management having been elected on 7-12- 1991 is entitled to continue to function upto 6-12-1994 and, therefore, the order appointing the Administrator deserves to be quashed and if that is t> o, impugned order dated 3-8-1994 passed subse quently by the District Assistant Registrar giving effect to the Court's interim order dated 28-7- 1994, also deserves to be quashed. 15. In the result, the first writ petition No. 24599 of 1994 fails and is dismissed and the second writ petition No. 28896 of 1994 succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 3-8-1994 (Annexure 8 to the second writ petition) is quashed. The interim order dated 28-7-1994 passed in the first writ petition is hereby vacated. In the circumstances of the case, we do not order for costs. Petitions decided accordingly. .;