Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is at the instance of a Co-operative Housing Society. It apprehends that another Housing Society covering a portion of its area is likely to be registered in the immediate future. The overlapping of the area of an existing society, is sought to be prevented under S.7(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. That, however, has a safety valve. S.101 of the Co-operative Societies Act confers powers on the Government to grant exemption from the provisions of the Act, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions contained therein. Such an order of exemption had been issued on 9-11-1979 and bad been published in the Gazette on 27-11-1979. The pattern of functioning of the Housing Societies, and the views expressed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India which is the main source for funds to the Kerala Apex Housing Co-operative Society which in turn finances the Primary Housing Co-operative Societies, bad been adverted to and considered by the Government in issuing the above order. The preamble to the order indicates the factors which weighed with the Government in passing that order. 2. In view of Ext. P1 order, the petitioner cannot object to the formation of the new society. The petitioner has therefore chosen to question the very constitutional validity of the statutory provision S.101 which enables the Government to issue such an order. 3. The validity of the order itself is separately challenged. 4. It is well known that the working of a statute may create problems or difficulties unanticipated at the time of the enactment of a legislation. It is necessary that sufficient enabling provisions are made to get over such problems and difficulties. To seek a legislative cure, is necessarily a time consuming process. Emergent situations would require speedy action. Such situations may be of diverse characters. It will be virtually impossible if a legislative amendment is to be sought for, for tiding over such situations, when public interest would justify a departure from the existing provisions. The power to exempt is a necessary power. The possibility of its abuse has to be provided for. Conferring power on the Government itself is one way of checking the abuse. Even the exercise of power by the Government is hedged in by conditions. The exemption can be granted only if public interest demands the same. The power to exempt is a necessary power. The possibility of its abuse has to be provided for. Conferring power on the Government itself is one way of checking the abuse. Even the exercise of power by the Government is hedged in by conditions. The exemption can be granted only if public interest demands the same. Yet another safeguard is that the reasons have to be recorded when any such order is issued. These provisions give sufficient protective cover to S.101 when it is assailed on the ground of violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. The fact that similar provisions have been in existence for many decades, is also as indication not necessarily conclusive of the reasonableness and necessity of such a provision. I repel the contention that S.101 has the vice of uncanalised and arbitrary power. 5. The reasons given in support of Ext.P1 are rational and relevant. The growing housing problem arising out of fast urbanisation of the country, is of a serious proportion. This is so in developed and developing countries. This State also is no exemption to the general phenomenon. The housing activities have therefore to be treated separately and specially. Even in relation to the organisation of Co-operative Societies, a special treatment would be justified in this area. Co-operative venture would certainly play a dominant and dynamic role in solving the grave and acute housing problems. A body like the Life Insurance Corporation, has also expressed its views on the question. That is a body whose views are of value, in the light of its association with such housing ventures all over the country. Its expertise arising out of the intimate contact with construction works for which it supplies substantial funds, is also an important and relevant material, which could be properly taken note of by any decision making authority. The order has been passed on an advertence to the relevant materials and after considering the recommendation of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The order is perfectly legal and valid in the above circumstances. 6. The petitioner relied on the observations contained in Ext.P2 circular of the Registrar. Particular emphasis was placed on the following passage in Para.4 thereof: "Housing societies can be registered in areas already covered by as existing society under exemption granted by Government regarding overlapping of area of operation. The order is perfectly legal and valid in the above circumstances. 6. The petitioner relied on the observations contained in Ext.P2 circular of the Registrar. Particular emphasis was placed on the following passage in Para.4 thereof: "Housing societies can be registered in areas already covered by as existing society under exemption granted by Government regarding overlapping of area of operation. This does not mean that housing societies can be registered as a matter of routine unmindful of the overlapping of area or need or scope for a society. Where the existing society is ineffective in certain pockets or its area of operation is too large and unwieldly or for geographical consideration a new society may be necessary. The proposals should invariably be referred to the Housing Federation. Only after satisfying themselves of the above, permission need be sought by the Joint Registrars." The observations do not in any way lead to the conclusion that the order granting exemption, is unjustified or unwarranted. The circular only indicates that the Registrar has been in close grip with the working of the Housing Societies, and had given proper and useful directions in the registration of new societies. Ext.P1 is an enabling order. Whether in a given situation registration could be granted, is a matter which the officers have to consider properly, carefully and objectively. The attention of the officials concerned with that function, has been drawn to some of the important aspects covered by the above circular. That only ensures a proper implementation of Ext.P1 order. It does not go to show that the substratum of Ext.P1 is destroyed. 7. In the light of the above discussion, both the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner fail. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Dismissed.