G. C. BHARUKN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Co-operative Society is aggrieved by the Government Order dated 24-6-1995 (Annexure-C) whereby the Government pursuant to its powers under Section 29 (I) of the Karnataka Cooperative societies Act, 1959 (the Act, for short) has appointed three persons as its nominees in the Committee of the petitioner Society. ( 2 ) PETITIONER is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of the Act.-Against the total share capital of the petitioner society, the government has subscribed Rs. 1 lakh towards the same Bye-laws 14 of the society provides for constitution of the Managing Committee, an English translation whereof (Annexure-B) as furnished by the petitioner, provides as under :"bye-LAW No. 14 : Governing Body 1 (A ). For carrying on the Administration of the Society there shall be a committee of 11 members and in the said committee the following representatives shall be there (i) Four elected members among the small and marginal farmers as their representatives. Explanation. Farmers suggested from time to time by the Registrar shall be treated as the Small and Marginal farmers. (it) One elected members among scheduled caste and scheduled tribes as their representatives. (iii) Among others (apart from the members mentioned at (i) and (ii) above), 4 elected members. (iv) One representative of the Assistant Registrar being the village Assistant of the area. (v) One representative of Financing Agency being the Supervisor/inspector of the area. " ( 3 ) KEEPING in view the said stipulations of the bye-law, it has been submitted that since in that bye-law itself, the society has provided for nomination of two Government servants as ex-officio members, it should be deemed that they are duly nominated as per the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, and, therefore, further nomination of three more persons by the government is unsustainable in law. ( 4 ) IN support of the said ground Sri Bhat learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision in the case of Naganna Gowda N. G. V. Stats of Karnataka, 1987 (2) KLJ 389 where it has been held if a provision for nomination in terms of Section 29 of the Act is made in the bye laws, namely providing for three members to be nominated by the Government, it will be deemed to be a reproduction of the requirement of the law and cannot be taken as authorising the Government to nominate farther three members. In my opinion, this decision is not of much help in resolving the controversies raised herein. ( 5 ) I may usefully refer here to the relevant provisions of two sections, viz , Sections 29 and 53 A of the Act providing for nomination of members by the Government on the committee of a Co-operative Society. Sub-sections (i) of the said sections are relevant for the pressnt purpose and are being reproduced hereunder :"29. Nominees of the Government on the Committee of a Co-operative Society : (1) Where the State Government (a) has subscribed to the share capital of a co-operative society, or (b) has assisted indirectly in the formation or augmentation of the share capital of a co-operative society as provided in Chapter VI, or (c) has guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of interest on debentures issued by a co-operative society, or (d) has guaranteed the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans and advances to a co-operative society. the "state Government or any authority specified by the state Government in this behalf, shall notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules or the byelaws of the co-operative society, but subject to any notification or order, for the time being in force, issued or made under Section 54 or 121, have the right to nominate as its representatives not more than three persons or one-third of the total number of members of the committee of the co-operative society, whichever is less. ""53-A. Nomination of members of committee by State Government in certain cases (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 29, where the State Government has subscribed to the share capital of a co-operative society to the extent of not less than (i) fifty per cent of the total share capital, or (ii) five lakhs of rupees. the State Government shall have the right to nominate as its representatives one-third of the total number of members of the committee of the co-operative society. " ( 6 ) AT the very outset I may State here that admittedly Section 53-A of the Act will have no application in the facts of the present' case since the subscription by the Government to the share capital of the petitioner-Society is not to the extent which would attract the provisions of Section 53-A, for it is only one lakh rupees out of the total share capital of Rs. 5 lakhs. ( 7 ) NONTHELESS, the provision of Section 29 of the Act will apply to the facts of the present case. Under the bye-law referred to above (Aaaexure-B), the respondent Cooperative society of its own volition has providsd for appointment of ex- officio mambers of given designations Section 29 of the Act empowers the state Government to have its nominees in the Managing Committee to the society to safeguard its interest. The said right of the Government cannot be fettered by a Co-oporative Society by providing in its bye-law to nominate the designated officers of its choice. To say that making such a provision in the bye laws would satisfy the requirement of Section 29 of the Act as a substitute for Government nomination, will tantamount to depriving the government of its discretion to nominate the members. Such an argument cannot be accepted since it will be destructive of the very scheme of the act under Sections 29 and 53-A thereof, giving a discretion to the Government to have its nominated members in the committee. This view of mine is duly substantiated by the two decisions of this Court in the case of C. M. Vdasi v. State of Karnataka. This view of mine is duly substantiated by the two decisions of this Court in the case of C. M. Vdasi v. State of Karnataka. ILR 1994 Kar 1971 (FB) p. 16 and in the case of C. E. Krishnagowda v, State of Karnataka, 1991 (2) KLJ 272 (DB), which has duly considered and distinguished the case of Naganna Gowda (supra) ( 8 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the contentions raised for assailing the government Order at Annexure-C are devoid of any merit. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .