Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. The question that has come up for consideration in this case is as to whether petitioner can compel the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to issue an order of exemption so as to qualify him for contesting election in the Board of Directors of Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society. 2. Petitioner is at present working as Secretary of Kulasekharapuram Service Cooperative Bank. He is President of Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society which is situated opposite to Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank. Petitioner is being a paid Secretary of the Kulasekharapuram Service Cooperative Bank was not eligible to contest for election to the Board of Directors of Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. as per R.44(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. In the year 1995, petitioner submitted an application dated 31.5.95 to the first respondent for exempting him from the disqualification so as to contest for election to the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. In exercise of the power conferred under the proviso to R.44, the first respondent exempted petitioner from disqualification under R.44(1)(f) of the Cooperative Societies Rules. 4. Petitioner accordingly contested for election to the Board of Directors of the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society. He won the election. Later he became the President of the Society. 5. The term of the Board of Directors of the Oachira Block Rural Housing Cooperative Society is about to be over. Election notification dated 19.6.98 was issued by the third respondent. As per election notification the date for submission of nomination paper is 2.7.1998. Petitioner wanted to contest the election to the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society vide Ext. P7 election notification. A resolution was also passed by the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society requesting the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to exempt the petitioner from the disqualification under R.44(1)(f) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Resolution states that after taking charge by the petitioner as President the Society, it was considerably benefitted and that petitioners continued presence would be beneficial to the society. Another resolution was also passed by the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank dated 13.5.98 requesting the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to grant exemption to the petitioner for contesting the election, to the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society. 7. The Joint Registrar did not take any action on the said request. Petitioner then preferred O.P. 11765/98 before this Court. Another resolution was also passed by the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank dated 13.5.98 requesting the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to grant exemption to the petitioner for contesting the election, to the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society. 7. The Joint Registrar did not take any action on the said request. Petitioner then preferred O.P. 11765/98 before this Court. O.P. was disposed of by this Court on 24.6.98 directing the first respondent to consider the request of petitioner for granting exemption under the first proviso R.44(1)(f) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Joint Registrar then called for a report from the Assistant Registrar. He submitted his report dated 15.6.98. Joint Registrar accepted the said report and passed Ext. P10 orders. He took the view that if petitioner is allowed to contest for election to the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society, that would adversely affect the interest of Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank since he being the Secretary of the Cooperative Bank. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order and has filed this Writ Petition. 8. The main contention raised by counsel for petitioner is that since both the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank as well as the Oachira Block Rural Housing Co-operative Society have recommended to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies for granting the petitioner exemption from disqualification under R.44(1)(f) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, Joint Registrar ought to have exercised his powers under the proviso to said rule and granted exemption to the petitioner from disqualification. According to him, the Joint Registrar has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the request of the petitioner for granting him exemption from disqualification. According to him going by the recommendation made by the Co-operative Societies that petitioner be allowed to contest for election in the Oachira Block Rural Housing Cooperative Society. It would not in any way, according to the petitioner, affect the interest of the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank. 9. In order to examine the contention raised by counsel for petitioner is necessary to examine the powers of Registrar for exemption under R.44. The relevant portion of the Rule is extracted below for reference. "44. It would not in any way, according to the petitioner, affect the interest of the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank. 9. In order to examine the contention raised by counsel for petitioner is necessary to examine the powers of Registrar for exemption under R.44. The relevant portion of the Rule is extracted below for reference. "44. Disqualification of membership of Committee - (1) No member of the Society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of the committee of the society under S.28 if he: - XXX XXX XXX (f) is a paid employee of the society or of any other society; Provided that the Registrar may by general or special order exempt any society or any person from the operation of this clauses for such period to be specified by him in the order of exemption; or Provided further that this clause shall not apply in the case of an Employee's Co-operative Society". The fact that petitioner is working as a paid secretary of Kulasekharapuram Service Co-operative Bank is not denied. Since petitioner being a paid employee of the said society, he is disqualified from contesting for election to another Co-operative Society as per R.44(1)(f) of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Petitioner a paid secretary of the another society, can stand for the election only if Registrar exempt him under the proviso to the above mentioned rule. The provision enables the Registrar by general or special order exempt any person from the operation of that clause such period to be specified by him in the order of exemption. 10. The question that has to be considered in this case is as to whether petitioner who is otherwise disqualified for contesting election can compel the Joint Registrar to exercise powers under the said proviso and grant him exemption. In a case where the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies is not: exercising his powers under the said proviso can this Court direct the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to exercise the power under the proviso to the said rule. In a case where the Registrar has refused to exercise power is this court justified in examining the reasons for refusal or can the petitioner challenge the reasons stated by the Registrar in a Court of law, under Art.226 of the Constitution. 11. In a case where the Registrar has refused to exercise power is this court justified in examining the reasons for refusal or can the petitioner challenge the reasons stated by the Registrar in a Court of law, under Art.226 of the Constitution. 11. The proviso to R.44(1)(f) enables the Registrar by general or special order to exempt any society or any person from the operation of disqualification clause. It is a discretionary power. There is no statutory duly cast on the Registrar to exercise the discretion under the above mentioned proviso. There is no corresponding right for the petitioner to insist that Registrar should exercise discretion. A statute may also impose a legal duty on the authority to exercise the discretion in the event of which performance of that duty may be imperative, but may not be discretionary or optional. There may be situations where no duty is cast on the authority to exercisers discretion. If a duty is cast on an authority by the Constitution or any of the statutes it is bound to exercise the duty. If no duty is cast on the authority, he can either act or refuse to act. A person can compel an authority to exercise discretion only if the authority has a duty to exercise discretion and that there is a corresponding right for the person to compel that authority to exercise discretion. As held by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Mandawar, AIR 19954 SC 493, there must be in the applicant a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. That duty of the authority must be imposed on the some statutory provision or by the Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Lakshmikutty, AIR 1987 SC 33, the court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance. In the instant case, there is no statutory right on the petitioner to get exemption under the proviso to R.44(1)(f). In the absence of any such statutory right, he cannot compel the Registrar to exercise his discretion to give exemption to him from disqualification, under R.44 of the Rules. In the instant case, there is no statutory right on the petitioner to get exemption under the proviso to R.44(1)(f). In the absence of any such statutory right, he cannot compel the Registrar to exercise his discretion to give exemption to him from disqualification, under R.44 of the Rules. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, and settled legal position, I am of the view that petitioner has no legal right to compel the Registrar to exempt him from disqualification under the first proviso to R.44(1)(f) of the Rules. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Original Petition therefore lacks merits and the same is dismissed.