KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is taken up with the consent of parties. In this writ petition the constitutional validity of the Karnataka co-operative Societies (Amendment) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the act) notified on 12. 12. 1997 at Annexure-E is being challenged. The amendment is with respect to Rule 17. ( 2 ) IN Rule 17 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 in sub-rule (1) for the word "registrar" the word "government" was to be substituted. The 1st petitioner is a Federation. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the members of the member Societies of the 1st petitioner-Federation. ( 3 ) VARIOUS grounds have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Billappa. It was submitted that the amendment to the Rule under challenge is irrational, unreasonable, arbitrary and it gives unguided and unlimited power to the Government. It was also submitted that the registrar was looking after the affairs of the Societies for a number of years and now unnecessary burden is cast on the Government to look after the affairs of the Societies in place of the Registrar. It was also submitted that for every little matter the Society will have to approach the Government instead of the Registrar. Before the amendment the Registrar had power to sanction the opening of branches and to sanction the pay scale to the staff. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as per annexure-A the Reserve Bank of India had communicated to the Registrars to take a liberal view in opening of the branches and opening of new banks. Now all this power, indeed absolute power, vests with the Government. This appears to be the main grievance of the petitioners. It was also submitted that the amendment of Schedule-1 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 restricts the office bearers of the Society to use their own vehicles for travelling. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the State Mr. Veerappa submitted that the government has found it fit to take the responsibility in place of the Registrar and this amendment is only with respect to Rule 17 (1 ). ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the State Mr. Veerappa submitted that the government has found it fit to take the responsibility in place of the Registrar and this amendment is only with respect to Rule 17 (1 ). Rule 17 (1) of the rules reads as follows :"subject to the budget allotment sanctioned by the general body the management committee shall prescribe from time to item the strength of the establishment of the Society and the scale of pay and other allowances admissible to each member thereof with the prior approval of the Registrar. "provided that no post which its to be filled by deputation of otherwise of a Government servant shall be created except with the prior approval of the Government. " ( 6 ) THE learned Government pleader submitted that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners if prior approval is sought for from the Government instead of the Register. He also submitted that the amendment has been notified in the gazette after calling for objections. The learned Government pleader further submitted that by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the object of amendment is mala fide or without authority of law. ( 7 ) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Billappa and the learned Government pleader. It would not be proper for this Court to quash the bye-laws unless the impugned order is arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights or mala fide. The learned Counsel for the petitioners is not able to satisfy the Court that there was any mala fide intention in such an amendment. I suppose it could be argued that it is preferable that such matters as referred to under the amended Rule 17 (1) be left to the Registrar rather than the Government. However, these are policy decisions and the interference of the Court cannot determine such amendments, if they are otherwise in accordance with law. When Section 129 of the Act empowers the State Government to pass such bye-laws in accordance with law and to carry out the purpose of the Act, it would not be proper or correct for this court to interfere with such amendment to the bye-laws. I do not find any ground to interfere and to hold the amended Rules published in the notification dated 12. 12. 1997 at Annexure-E as unconstitutional. I do not find any ground to interfere and to hold the amended Rules published in the notification dated 12. 12. 1997 at Annexure-E as unconstitutional. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .