Retrospective operation of cooperative society amendment bars Administrator appointment before the elected board's five-year term ends.

Section 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, as substituted by the 11.02.2013 amendment, is treated as retrospective by necessary implication because the statutory scheme, object, and constitutional context show an intent to replace the earlier provision from inception. The amendment aligns the term of office with the five-year period from the date of election, and no vested right to continue under the former regime is recognised. On that footing, an Administrator under Section 28-A(5) cannot be appointed before expiry of the five-year term from the date of election, and the elected board continues until that term ends and the electoral process is completed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, as substituted by the amending Act dated 11.02.2013, is prospective or retrospective in nature; (ii) whether an Administrator can be appointed automatically under Section 28-A(5) if elections are not held within the stipulated time.

Issue (i): Whether Section 28-A(4) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, as substituted by the amending Act dated 11.02.2013, is prospective or retrospective in nature.

Analysis: The substituted provisions were enacted to align the State law with the constitutional mandate concerning co-operative societies. The term of office under Section 28-A(4), read with Sections 28-B(2), 29-A and 39-A, was intended to run for five years from the date of election, and the amendment by substitution was treated as replacing the earlier provision from inception. The Court held that the language, scheme, and object of the amendment indicated retrospective operation by necessary implication, and that the affected office-bearers had no vested right to continue under the earlier regime.

Conclusion: Section 28-A(4) is retrospective in nature.

Issue (ii): Whether an Administrator can be appointed automatically under Section 28-A(5) if elections are not held within the stipulated time.

Analysis: Once Section 28-A(4) was held to operate retrospectively, the existing board was entitled to continue until completion of five years from the date of election and until the electoral process contemplated by Section 39-A was completed. On that basis, the power to appoint an Administrator under Section 28-A(5) could not be invoked before expiry of the five-year term from the date of election.

Conclusion: An Administrator cannot be appointed until expiry of the five-year term from the date of election.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of retrospective operation of the substituted provision, and the writ appeals were disposed of by setting aside the order under challenge and preserving the continuance of the elected boards until completion of their statutory term.

Ratio Decidendi: A provision substituted by amendment may operate retrospectively where the statutory scheme, object, and constitutional context show a clear legislative intent that the new text should replace the old provision from inception, especially where no vested right is impaired.

---