Arun Kumar, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the exemption granted by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 99 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), to respondent No. 3 from the provisions of Sections36and 37 of the said Act. Annexure e to the writ petition is the order dated 13th January, 1998 which grants exemption as aforesaid from the provisions of Section 37 of the Act while Annexure f is the order dated 1 3th January, 1998 which grants exemption to respondent No. 3 and the Co-operative Bank of India from the provisions of Section 36 of the Act for a period of two years with effect from February/march, 1998. ( 2 ) THE challenge is mainly based on the ground that the exemption is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and is intended to promote the interest of an individual, i. e. respondent No. 4. According to the petitioner the impugned exemptions are a colourable exercise of power. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 99 of the Act which gives the power to the Central Government to grant exemption to a Society from the provisions of the Act is meant for the furtherance of the object of the Actand cannot be utilised to defeat the object of the Act. For ready reference the relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced as under: "sec. 99 (2) (i ). For ready reference the relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced as under: "sec. 99 (2) (i ). exempt any Multi-State Co-operative Society or any class of such societies from any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules;" Sec. 36 Holding of office in cooperative society- Notwithstanding any thing contained in this Act, no person shall be eligible to hold, at the same time, office of a President or Chairman or Vice-President or Vice-Chairman on the Board of more than one Multi-State Co-operative Society: 627 Provided that any person holding, at the commencement of this Act, the office of a President or Chairman or Vice-President or Vice-Chairman in more than one Multi-State Co-operative Society shall, within three months from such commencement by notice in writing signed by him, intimate the name of the Multi-State Co-operative Society in which he wishes to serve and thereupon his office in the other Multi-State Co-operative Society in which he does not wish to serve shall become vacant: Provided further that in default of such intimation within the period referred to in the preceding proviso, his offices in all the Multi-State Co-operative Societies shall, at the expiration of the period aforesaid, become vacant. Sec. 37. Restrictions on holding of office- No person shall be eligible to hold the office of a President or Chairman or Vice-President or Vice-Chairman on the Board of a Multi-State Co-operative Society, after he has held the office as aforesaid during two consecutive terms, whether full or part: Provided that a person who has ceased to hold the office of a President or Chairman continuously for one full term of three years shall again be eligible for election to the offices aforesaid. ( 3 ) THE National Co-operative Union of India (hereinafter referred to as "ncul"), respondent No. 3, is a Multi State Co-operative Society under the Act. It has its own bye-laws. Respondent No. 4, B. S. Wishwanathan is the President of the NCUl. In the NCUl he represented the Karnataka State Agricultural and Rural Development Bank in his capacity as the President of the said Bank. The Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act also contains provision regarding a person not being entitled to continue as President of a Co-operative Society for more than two terms. It also has a provision for exemption like Section 99 in the Multi-State Co- operative Societies Act. The Karnataka State Co-operative Societies Act also contains provision regarding a person not being entitled to continue as President of a Co-operative Society for more than two terms. It also has a provision for exemption like Section 99 in the Multi-State Co- operative Societies Act. Byvirtue of power of exemption respondent No. 4 allegedly continued as President of the Karnataka Agricultural and Rural Development Bank fora number of years. The exemption granted to respondent No. 4 by the Karnataka State Government under the Karnataka Act was challenged in the Karnataka High Court. The challenge is stated to have succeeded but a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court is said to be pending in the Karnataka High Court. Respondent No. 4 has stated in his counter affidavit that the State of Karnataka has in the meanwhile amended the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and the bar against continuing as President/office bearers for more than two terms has been removed. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner mainly is that the provision regarding granting exemption from the provisions of the Act cannot be utilised to perpetuate the hold of one individual on a Co-operative Society. This defeats the very purpose of co- operation. The power need not get concentrated in the hands of an individual. The concept of co-operation is to diversify power rather than concentrate it in the hands of one individual and that too inperpetuity. It is submitted that keeping this aspect in view, the Act contains the provision for maximum two terms for office bearers of the Societies. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS filed a counter affidavit in reply to the show cause notice issued in the writ petition. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents I and 2, i. e. the Government, the exemption was granted in accordance with the provisions of Section 99 of the Act on the request of respondent No. 3. The emphasis is that exemption was not granted on request of an individual,- i. e. respondent No. 4. The request came from respondent No. 3, the NCUI. It is further stated that the exemption was granted bona fide in exercise of the statutory powers keeping the relevant facts in view. Such exemptions from the provisions of Sections 36 and 37 of the Act have been granted in other cases also. The request came from respondent No. 3, the NCUI. It is further stated that the exemption was granted bona fide in exercise of the statutory powers keeping the relevant facts in view. Such exemptions from the provisions of Sections 36 and 37 of the Act have been granted in other cases also. The relevant portion in the affidavit on behalf of the Government is reproduced as under: "the exemption was granted to the respondent No. 3 Union in the interest of the Union which represents the entire Co-operative movement at the National level in order to maintain continuity in its management for a certain period only. The exemption was only for a limited period. It was not a blanket exemption perpetuating the continuation of the respondent No. 4 for indefinite period. In fact exemption was not granted to a certain individual. " ( 6 ) FURTHER it has been stated that the exemption granted to a Society does not mean that it is an exemption in favour of an individual because it is always open to the Society to elect any person as its President as per its bye-laws. The exemption was granted keeping in view the peculiar facts to which reference has been made in para D of the counter affidavit. The relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under: "it is respectfully submitted that Co-operative Bank of India was registered as a Multi-State Co-operative Bank under the provisions of the Act. The main object of this Bank is to act as an Apex Banking Institution for the Co-opera tive sector banking in the country. This Bank was promoted by the respondent Union. Being the President of the respondent union the respondent No. 4 played an active role for the promotion and development of the Co-operative Bank of India. This Bank was facing some problems to get banking licences from the Reserve Bank of India, hence, the association of the respondent No. 4 was considered expedient and useful as the Chairman of the said Bank. For this reason and after the careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the Central Government provided exemption to the respondent Union and Cooperative Bank of India under Section 36 of the Act. Thus, the order at Annex. D of the petition is, therefore, legal and good in law. For this reason and after the careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the Central Government provided exemption to the respondent Union and Cooperative Bank of India under Section 36 of the Act. Thus, the order at Annex. D of the petition is, therefore, legal and good in law. " ( 7 ) IN the counter affidavitfiled on behalf of respondent No. 4, some prel iminary objections have been raised including maintainability of the writ petition by petitioner No. 1 in view of absence of any resolution of petitioner No. 1 authorising institution of the present writ petition. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, it is submitted that he himself was a beneficiary of the exemption and contested the election of NCUI held in March 1997and,therefore, he doesnot have any locus standi to challenge the election. The present election is continuation of the exemption which was in force in March, 1997. It is further submitted that there is some dispute between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 regarding occupancy of premises of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the present writ petition is motivated. The main ground urged by respondent No. 4 against the writ petition is that the petitioners cannot seek judicial review of the decision of the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 99 of the Act. ( 8 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. The main question for consideration before this Courtis whether this Court will exercise its power of judicial review in the factsand circumstances of the present case. Respondent No. 4 has alongwith its affidavit annexed the decision of the Governing Council of the NCUI dated 26th December 1997. The said decision culminated in a resolution to seek the exemptions from the Central Government which are under challenge in the present writ petition. The relevant minutes of the NCUI needs to be. reproduced in order to have a complete picture. "president recalled that Government of India vide its Gazette Notification had exempted National Co-operative Union of India (NCUI) and Co-operative Bank of India (COBI) from the provisions of Section 36and 37 till 3rd February, 1998 and 30th March, 1998 respectively so as to enable NCUI to allow the continuance of Shri B. S. Vishwanathan as Chairman of COBI and President, NCUI beyond two consecutive terms. Such exemption was granted to enable NCUI and Cobi to avail of the services of Shri B. S. Vishwanathan as President of NCUI and Chairman, COBI on the unanimous request of Governing Council of NCUI and Board of Directors of COBI. 2. It was further recalled that the elections of NCUI and cobi have been held in February/march, 1997 and Shri B. S. Vishwanathan has been unanimously elected as President, NCUI and Chairman, COBI. According to provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act and Rules Shri B. S. Vishwanathan may continue as President NCUI and Chairman, COBI FORA further period three years but for period of exemption expiring on 30th March, 1998 and 3rd February, 1998 respectively. It had been anticipated that during the period of exemption the much awaited amended Multi State Co-operative Socities Act would materialise deleting all the restrictive provisions including Sections 36 and 37 so that NCUI and cobi could -avail of the services of Shri B. S. Vishwanathan on continuing basis in the interest of both the organisations. However, this has not been materialise due to dissolution of Parliament and announcement of general elections. 3. In the meantime, efforts were also made by President of NCUI to seek general exemption for all the Multi State Co-operative Societies from the provisions of Sections 29 (3); 36; 37 and 50 pending the comprehensive amendment of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act as demanded by NCUI. But this may also not be possible due to announcement of elections. However, President informed the Governing Council that specific exemption for NCUI from the operations of the provisions of Sections 36 and 37 may not be a problem, since a number of national level Co-operative federations have been granted such exemption and it was for Governing Council to take view in the matter. The representatives of National Co-operative Dairy Federation of India and National Dairy Development Board informed the Governing Council that their organisations were not in a favour of seeking special exemption for any Multi State Co-operative Societies or National Co-operative Federations. They also informed that their organisations also did not endorse the tactics of Government nominee being elected as the office-bearers in the Co-operative organisations. Their view may be recorded in the minutes. 4. They also informed that their organisations also did not endorse the tactics of Government nominee being elected as the office-bearers in the Co-operative organisations. Their view may be recorded in the minutes. 4. The Coveming Council took note of the situation and has adopted following resolution: "the Governing Council is of strong view that discontinuation of Shri B. S. Vishwanathan as President, NCUI and Chairman, COBI at this stage, when a number of devclopment projects of NCUI namely building project, international Co-operative trade project, operationalisation of cobi are still under completion, will be a big loss to these organisations. Further this will also deprive Indian Co-operative movement of its representation on the Board of Directors of International Co-operative Alliance and its Asia and Pacific Regional Executive Council to which Mr. B. S. Vishwanathan has been recently elected. The Governing Council, therefore, urges upon the Government of India to extend the period of exemption from the operations of Section 36 of Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 to NCUI and cobi fora further period of two years w. e. f. 3rd February, 1998 and from Section 37 Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 to NCUI for a further period of two years w. e. f. 30th March, 1998". The President NCUI was authorised to take up the matter with the Government of India. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair. " ( 9 ) THE above was as a matter of fact the material before the Central Government for purposes of taking a decision on the question of grant of exemption from provisions of Sections 36 and 37 of the Act. On the basis of the above material the Central Government ultimately passed the impugned orders dated 13th January, 1998, Annx. e and Annx/f to the writ petition. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to the use of words "construction of Auditorium-cum-Office Complex" in the order Annx. e urged that construction of an Auditorium-cum-Office Complex cannot be said to be a matter which only respondent No. 4 could get completed. On this basis it was urged that for something which was really not necessary and germane to the object exemption was granted. The grant of exemption was obviously to serve the interest of respondent No. 4 and as such arbitrary and liable to be quashed. On this basis it was urged that for something which was really not necessary and germane to the object exemption was granted. The grant of exemption was obviously to serve the interest of respondent No. 4 and as such arbitrary and liable to be quashed. We are unable to accept this contention in view of the minutes and resolution of the Governing Council which has been reproduced hereinbefore, which was available to the Central Government before the impugned decision was taken. There was material before the Central Government to enable it to take the decision. As a matter of fact in exercise of its power of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India this Court will not go into the merits of the decision of the Central Government so long as it is shown that there was material on record to enable the Government to take the decision. Same applies to the other order dated 13th January, 1998 (Annx. f ) regarding grant of exemption from provisions of Section 36 of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of the case we do not think that it is possible to say that the decision of the Central Government was arbitrary or it is colourable exercise of power. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that power of exemption which vests with the Central Government by virtue of Section 99 of the Act cannot be used to defeat the object of the Act also cannot be sustained in view of the facts on record. It is not a case of abuse of power or exercise of power in order to perpetuate the control of a particular individual on the affairs of a Co-operative Society. The disqualifying provisions of Sections 36 and 37 though had a laudable object, yet in given facts and situations there may be need to grant exemption from the rigour of these provisions. In the facts of the present case, the Co-operative Bank of India appears to have come into being recently and it needs to be nurtured to be on its feet. The decision of the NCUI quoted hereinbefore gives sufficient reason for letting respondent No. 4 continue in his position in order to get over the teething troubles of respondent No. 4. The decision of the NCUI quoted hereinbefore gives sufficient reason for letting respondent No. 4 continue in his position in order to get over the teething troubles of respondent No. 4. Thus the exemption is really to remove the disqualification which Sections 36 and 37 visit on an individual. The exemption power removes the rigour of the disqualification. It cannot, therefore, be said that the exemption provision is being used to defeat the object of the Act rather than to serve its object. THUS in the facts of the present case we find no merit in the challenge to the exemptions granted by the Central Government from the provisions of Sections 36 and 37 of the Act in favour of the NCUI and the Co-operative Bank of India in exercise of its power under Section 99 of the Act. The writ petition accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed.