D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed under the caption "interlocutory", at the request of both sides, the main writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in re. No. 666/2003 E1, dated 18-3-2003, issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G. O. Ms. No. 63, dated 5-3-2003. ( 3 ) THE undisputed facts are that the person who was originally elected as president of Gokavaram Large Sized Credit co-operative Society Limited, Gokavaram, east Godavari District (for short "the society), died on 20-1-2002, and consequently the petitioner, who was also a member of the said society, was appointed as Chairman to the Committee of persons-in-charge of the society through proceedings, dt. 12-8-2002, for the period from 30-7-2002 to 27-1-2003. The 2nd respondent through the impugned proceedings, dated 18-3-2003, appointed a committee of persons-in-charge to manage the affairs of the society, obviously, without appointing the petitioner for any further period after the expiry of his fixed term i. e. , by 27-1-2003. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 4 ) SRI A. Satya Parsad, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends firstly that there should be reasonable basis for not continuing the petitioner the Chairman of the persons-in-charge of the society while resorting to appoint a Committee of persons- in-charge and that since no such rational basis had been shown in the impugned proceedings, the same is liable to be held as arbitrary; secondly that the ground which is now pointed out by the 2nd respondent in the counter-affidavit, i. e. , a near relative of the petitioner was a defaulter, is not at all ground envisaged under Rule-24 of the andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies rules, 1964 (for short" the Rules" ). In other words his contention is that such a reason is not traceable to any of the Rules particularly rule-24 of the Rules; and thirdly that the authorities shall see that the democratically elected person or body should be preferred to any official person or persons-in-charge in order to advance the co-operative movement. ( 5 ) PER contra, Smt, Vijayalakshmi, the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, contends that the Government have issued G. O. Ms. ( 5 ) PER contra, Smt, Vijayalakshmi, the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, contends that the Government have issued G. O. Ms. No. 45 Agriculture and co-operation Department, dated 19-2-2003, wherein certain guidelines have been proscribed while appointing the members of the Managing Committee as persons-in- charge. She further contends that in fact it is rule-24 (1) (b), which is more relevant than rule-24 (1) (a), ought to have been quoted in the impugned order and reference to rule-24 (1) (d) might be due to an inadvertent mistake. It is her further contention that there is no vested right in the president or any member of members of the society to be appointed as persons-in- charge and that it is only the satisfaction of the Registrar or the Government, as the case may be, depending upon the functioning of the society basing on the totality of circumstances. She places reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Elakolanu Primary agricultural Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. v. Govt. of A. P. It is further contended that the petitioner is a defaulter and by virtue of operation of G. O. Ms. No. 45, dt. 19-2-2003, the petitioner is not entitled, as a matter of fact, to continue as Chairman of the committee of persons-in-charge of the society. ( 6 ) THE relevant portion in G. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003, is as under;"for PACSs: as a matter of principle, the elected members of the Managing Committee of the PACSs including the President will be appointed as PICs subject to the following conditions: (1) that they individually or their near relatives (as defined in rule 24 (1 ) (d) are not defaulters to the PACSs or the higher tier financing banks. (2 ). . . . . . . . . (3 ). . . . . . . . . (4 ). . . . . . . . . (5 ). . . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . . . . . (7 ). . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) FROM the above G. O. , it is clear that the originally elected members of the managing Committee has no right to be appointed as persons-in-charge. (5 ). . . . . . . . . (6 ). . . . . . . . . (7 ). . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) FROM the above G. O. , it is clear that the originally elected members of the managing Committee has no right to be appointed as persons-in-charge. But, as a matter of policy, the Government though the above mentioned G. O. , has permitted the elected members of the Managing committee to be appointed as persons-in- charge and while giving such permission, the government has issued certain conditions and one among the said conditions is that the individual concerned or their near relatives shall not have committed default to the society or to any financial banks. ( 8 ) IN the above circumstances, it is to be examined as to whether the 2nd respondent, while exercising the powers of Registrar can appoint persons-in-charge to the society, in terms of the Executive Instructions issued from time to time like G. O. Ms. No. 45. ( 9 ) SECTION -32 (7) (a) and (b) of the Act, for convenience and which are relevant, is extracted hereunder:"sub-SECTION-7 (a): "if there is no committee or in the opinion of the government or, the Registrar, it is not possible to call a general meeting for the purpose of conducting election of members of the committee, the government, in respect of such class of societies as may be prescribed and the registrar in all other cases may appoint a person or persons to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months and the government may, on their own and the registrar with the previous approval of the Government, extend, from time to time, such period beyond six months, so however that the aggregate period include the extended period if any, shall not exceed three years. " "sub-section (7) (b): the person or persons so appointed shall, subject to the control of the Government or as the case may be, of the Registrar and subject to such instructions or directions as they may issue, from time to time, have power to exercise all or any of the functions of the committee or any officer of-the society and to take all such actions as may be required in the interest of the society. " ( 10 ) FROM a reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, has the power to appoint a person or persons-in- charge to a society for a period of six months which can be extended with the prior approval of the Government, but not beyond a total period of three years. It is further obvious that the Registrar has absolute power, and subject to his satisfaction, a person or persons-in-charge can be appointed. No reference has been made in the said provision with regard to the consideration of the cases of the President or any member of the society to be appointed as person or persons-in-charge in preference to any official person-in-charge. ( 11 ) IT is to be noticed that sub-section (b) of Section-7 of the Act further postulates that such appointment of person or persons-in- charge would be subject to the control of the government or the Registrar, as the case may be, and the said control is by way of any instructions or directions issued from time to time and the instructions again shall be understood as the policy of the Government or the instructions of the Registrar. ( 12 ) THE significant factor to be noted is that the elected President and other members of the Managing Committee of the society have been appointed as persons-in- charge with a view to retain the democratic character of the co-operative movement and to ensure the continuity in the management of the affairs of the society by such elected members only as far as possible. This policy decision is visibly clear from the provisions of g. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003, and by virtue of that policy only the present committee is continuing as persons-in- charge. ( 13 ) FROM the above the situation is very clear to the effect that there is no vested right in the President or the other members of the managing Committee of the society to be appointed as person or persons-in-charge. On the contrary, that right is recognized by the Government only as a policy, but not as a statutory right. ( 14 ) IT is to be further noted that g. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003, as such, is not under challenge in the present writ petition. On the contrary, that right is recognized by the Government only as a policy, but not as a statutory right. ( 14 ) IT is to be further noted that g. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003, as such, is not under challenge in the present writ petition. The thrust is whether the policy decision is in conformity with the statutory provisions i. e. , the Rules. As already noticed, rule-24 deals with the disqualification for membership of the Committee. ( 15 ) RULE-24 of the Rules, for convenience, is extracted hereunder:"disqualification for membership of committee:- (1) No person shall be eligible for being chosen or continuing as a President of a Primary Co-op. Society or as a member of the committee of any society, if he,- (a) is a near relative of a paid employee of the Society. (b) is in default to the Society or to any other Society for such period as is specified in the bye-laws of the society concerned, or in any case for a period exceeding three months, or is a defaulter to the society or to any other Society, or is a delegate of a society which is defunct or is in default for a period exceeding three months; (c) is interested directly or indirectly in any contract made with the Society or in any sale or purchase made by the society privately or in any auction or in any contract or transaction of the Society, other than investment and borrowing involving financial interest, if the contract or transaction subsisting or if the contract, transaction, sale or purchase has not been completed and (d) is a member of the Committee of more than two Apex or Central societies or of the Committee or more than one Apex Society and one Central Society. " ( 16 ) IN fact, Rule-24 deals with disqualification for memberships of an elected Committee whereas G. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003, which is a policy decision of the Government, prescribing the procedure for appointment of the members of the elected Committee for being appointed as person-in-charge of he society, who individually or the near relatives are not defaulters to the society or any higher tier financial banks. A reference in this regard was made to Rule 24 (b) of the Rules. A reference in this regard was made to Rule 24 (b) of the Rules. ( 17 ) BUT, a reading of Rule-24, which deals with disqualification of membership of a Committee, and the prohibition incorporated in G. O. Ms. No. 45, dt. 19-2-2003, appears to be that they are two different aspects. But, a careful reading of the above mentioned Rule and the G. O. , discloses that the intention//policy of the Government in incorporating such prohibition in G. O. Ms. No. 45 obviously appears to be that the disqualification for the elected members of the Committee as prescribed under rule 24 (b) of the Rules, shall also be made applicable while appointing such elected members of the Committee as persons-in- charge, which is to the effect that his or their near relatives shall not be defaulters of the society or any higher tier financial banks to ensure the trustworthiness of such person or persons-in-charge amongst the members of the society and the general public as well, who would reasonably expect that the head or heads of the society in the capacity of person or persons-in-charge would act, run and manage the affairs of the society beyond any reasonable doubt. If such person or persons-in-charge or his or their near relatives themselves are found to be defaulter, the credibility of the management of the society by such person or persons-in- charge would itself fall in the well of doubt. Therefore, the very object of the government in incorporating this condition as a policy in G. O. Ms. No. 45, dt. 19-2-2003, cannot be treated as unreasonable nor there is any conflict apparent between the G. O. , and the Rules nor there is any vested right in the President or member of the society to be appointed as person or persons-in-charge as a matter of right. ( 18 ) THE co-operative movement, no doubt, should be encouraged and protected by all means but to meet the contigencies of failure in the system, if found, the necessary safeguards were incorporated by way of different provisions in the Co-operative societies Act and Section 32 (7) (a) of the Act is one such. ( 19 ) IT is on record that the term of the officer of the petitioner as Chairman of the persons-in-charge Committee of the society had already expired. ( 19 ) IT is on record that the term of the officer of the petitioner as Chairman of the persons-in-charge Committee of the society had already expired. On such expiration, it is the discretion of the Registrar to appoint a new person-in-charge of the Committee to the society, of course, subject to the policy of the Government, as enunciated in g. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003. ( 20 ) A Division Bench of this Court in elakolanu Primary Agricultural Co-op. Credit society Ltd. v. Govt. of A. P. (1 supra), observed as under:"a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision would clearly show that even assuming that the appellants herein do not stand disqualified, the same by itself cannot be a ground for their appointment as persons-in-charge. A writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued provided the writ petitioner establishes the existence of a legal right in himself and a corresponding legal duty in the respondent. Section 32 (7) of the Act does not envisage that only the erstwhile members of the Co-operative society would be appointed as persons-in-charge. Section 32 (7) confers discretion upon the appropriate authority to appoint persons-in-charge. It is not the case of the appellants that such a discretion has been arbitrarily exercised or is abused by the respondents herein. In such a situation, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the plea of malice -in-law, the Court shall not issue any directions, which run contrary to the discretionary power conferred upon the appointing authority in terms of the aforementioned clause. In the absence of any express provision in the statute, it cannot be said that the appellants had a legal, right to be appointed as persons-in- charge even if it be assumed that they were not disqualified. " ( 21 ) IN the instant case, the close and near relative of the petitioner had been found to be defaulter of the society and in view of the foregoing discussion, I do not find any unreasonable or arbitrariness in the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings, dated 18-3-2003. It is to be further held that G. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003, is in conformity with Rule 24 (b) of the Rules. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is to be further held that G. O. Ms. No. 45, dated 19-2-2003, is in conformity with Rule 24 (b) of the Rules. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. ( 22 ) IN the result, the writ petition is dismissed, However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( 23 ) THE order of interim suspension granted by this Court in W. P. M. P. No. 7471 of 2003, dated 18-4-2003, is hereby vacated.