B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) SINCE all these writ petitions involved common question of law, they have been taken up together, at the instance of the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties from both sides. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, leading on behalf of the other counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned government pleader for co-operation and agriculture. ( 3 ) IN all these writ petitions the petitioners herein by way of writ of mandamus seeking declaration that the proceedings issued by the respondent appointing persons-in-charge to the primary agricultural co-operative societies in the State of A. P. In the place of the elected chairman of the persons-in-charge committees, as illegal and arbitrary and violative of principles of natural Justice, apart from being in the teeth of the principles and directions given by the division bench of this court in M. Ranga Reddy v. State of A. P. , AIR 1989 AP 81 = 1990 (3) ALT 231, and to further direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as chairman of the persons-in-charge committees of each individual societies. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioners in brief is that the petitioner was elected as a president of primary agricultural cooperative society during the elections conducted in the year 1995. The term of the said elected body came to an end in the year 2000. As per G. O. Ms. No. 172, dated 24-7-2000, the petitioner has appointed as the chairman of the persons-in-charge committee. Thereafter, the term of the petitioners stood extended for further period and the society is doing of its activities without any complaint of whatsoever nature. However, under the impugned orders the respondent has appointed official persons-in-charge in place of the petitioner. Taking through the co-operative movement and the spirit behind, the case of the petitioners specifically is that these bodies should be made exclusively by the elected body and not by any persons or persons-in-charge appointed at the instance of the government and further even though the verms stood expjre by the year 2000 and long lapse of time till today, no elections are conducted, so that the new body take over the reigns. If at all the respondents wanted to postpone the elections, the arrangement, which already been made earlier, could have been continued till after the completion of the said election. If at all the respondents wanted to postpone the elections, the arrangement, which already been made earlier, could have been continued till after the completion of the said election. Therefore, replacing the petitioners, who are been part of the erstwhile body and against whom no elections were made, nor there is any reason to deny such arrangement, is totally contrary to the democratic principles and further it also not in terms of the mandate as contained under Section 32 of the A. P. Co-Operative Societies Act 1964 (for short the act ). ( 5 ) THE learned government pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that having regard to the various checkered events and due to exigency, even though the period of the elected bodies was over by the year 2000, the elections could not be conducted and therefore in exercise of powers under Section 32 (7) (a) of the act, the committees were constituted and now having regard to the necessity to see that the proper elections are conducted with the substantial changes in the offing, the government has rightly appointed the officials as person-in-charge, so that the elections would be conducted in a more independent manner than incharging the very same persons who have been there all along either in the elected body or in committee. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made and on perusal of the material, the question, which falls for consideration in this batch of cases, is, whether the impugned orders passed individually are valid ? ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute to the basic fact that these primary co-operative societies are governed by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act and in the elections conducted in the year 1995 for a period of five years the elected body was ushered in and that period stood expired by the year 2000. Immediately, at that time, the respondents have constituted persons-in-charge committee in exercise of powers under Section 32 (7) (a) of the act by appointing the persons from amongst the elected body and the same was continued to discharge their functions. Now, under the impugned orders the case of the respondents is that having regard to the changes that are sought to be made and with the object of holding elections at the earliest, the impugned action has been taken recourse to by appointing officials as persons-in-charge. Now, under the impugned orders the case of the respondents is that having regard to the changes that are sought to be made and with the object of holding elections at the earliest, the impugned action has been taken recourse to by appointing officials as persons-in-charge. ( 8 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that having found that immediate elections cannot be held, there is nothing wrong in continuing the very same committees, to which the petitioners represent, as the persons-in-charge, rather than removing them and appointing officials as persons-in-charges. ( 9 ) IN the counter-affidavit, filed by the respondents herein, which is sworn to by Sri N. Ramesh Kumar, Secretary to Government, Co-Operation and Marketing Department, it is stated that the restructuring of the co-operative credit structure is being done in pursuance of the recommendations of the various committees on the programme and in particular the report of rama rao committee and therefore, necessarily the elections are to be held only after restructuring of the pacss, whereby it is proposed to reduce the existing 4600 pacss to 2000 and the entire process would take atleast for a period of six months. On the basis of expert committee recommendations, the district level committees and state level committees have been constituted to review and superwise the implementation of the agreed action plan and therefore the societies have to be re-organised taking into consideration the viability of the societies. It is further submitted that government has already started action for collection of membership amount of Rs. 300/- from each member in all the co-operative societies and also thrift amount from the members to enable the members to exercise their vote in the forthcoming cooperative elections by 31-3-2005. It was further stated that the government has constituted the following group of minister (gom) for processing elections to the managing committees of agricultural credit societies vide G. O. Rt. No. 5072, ga (cabinet) department dated 3-9-2004 for examining the issues relating to the processing elections to the managing committees of the societies and to make recommendations. The said committee consists of ministers for co-operation, panchayat, raj, major industries, technical education and major irrigation and the secretary to the government (co-op, and marketing), agricultural and co-operation department is the convener of the said group. The said committee consists of ministers for co-operation, panchayat, raj, major industries, technical education and major irrigation and the secretary to the government (co-op, and marketing), agricultural and co-operation department is the convener of the said group. Consequent thereto, a meeting of the said G. O. m. Is convened on 1-10-2004 for examining all these issues and the elections will be conducted soon after submission of the recommendations of the group of ministers to the government. It is therefore though it necessary to continue the official persons-in-charge to manage the day-to-day affairs of the society, as the same is inevitable. It was further reiterated that government is keen on conducting elections on finalizing and implementing the proposed action plan to make the co-operatives healthy and viable latest by 31-3-2005. It was also reiterated that every effort is being made to conduct elections even earlier. This counter-affidavit is filed subsequent thereto earlier counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the entire checkered events leading to the appointment of the persons-in- charge committees and also official persons- in-charge were being done. ( 10 ) FROM the above, it is seen that it is now case that absolutely no steps are been taken by the respondents herein in the process of conducting elections. According to them, as per the report there is every need for restructuring the whole societies and make it viable by making substantial changes. These are all policy matters where the government has to take its own steps for ultimately achieving said object. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the elections were conducted as long back as in the year 1995 and the term of the said elected body came to an end in the year 2000. The arrangement as contemplated under Section 32 (7) (a) of the act in appointing the persons-in-charge, continuing even today. Earlier, the petitioners were on the committee of persons-in-charge and now the same is being replaced by officials as persons-in-charge. As pointed out in the counter-affidavit there is serious effort for re-vitaling the societies, which are already facing many practical difficulties, so that ultimately the objects of the co-operative movement can be properly met. In regard to the reasons, as shown, especially for revitaling the societies there is no serious denial on the part of the writ petitioners, nor there is any allegation in rebuttal to the effect. In regard to the reasons, as shown, especially for revitaling the societies there is no serious denial on the part of the writ petitioners, nor there is any allegation in rebuttal to the effect. In the circumstances, it has to be taken that it is only with a view to take such steps, which will consume sometime, it cannot be said that there is any laches or muchless anything can be attributed against the respondents herein in following process for holding elections. ( 11 ) IN regard to the appointment of officials as persons-in-charge is concerned the provisions under Section 32 (7) (a) reads as follows:"32. (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. " ( 12 ) ON the bare reading of the aforesaid provision it does not laid down nor pin point against any person to be appointed as persons-in-charge and in fact it confers ample powers on the part of the authorities for appointing a person to manage the affairs of the society. There is no restriction much less any preference provided thereunder for claiming for appointment as a persons-in-charge. In the. Circumstances, even by bare look at the provisions, it cannot be said that any person including the petitioners have any enforceable right to claim for appointment as a persons- in-charge, but it is totally well within the exclusive parameters of discretion vested with such authority. In the. Circumstances, even by bare look at the provisions, it cannot be said that any person including the petitioners have any enforceable right to claim for appointment as a persons- in-charge, but it is totally well within the exclusive parameters of discretion vested with such authority. ( 13 ) IN M. Gidda Reddy v. Deputy Registrar, Kurnool, AIR 1977 AP 274 , case considering the provisions of the sections 31 (2) (b), 123 of the act a full bench of this court has held that power of registrar to extend term of managing committee is discretionary one and the same has to be exercised for the purpose of the act in good faith and at relevant grounds. ( 14 ) IN Dy. Registrar Co-Operative Societies v. K. Gandaiah, 1978 (1) APLJ 347 , case division bench of this court considering the clause (a) of Section 32 (7) of the act, in a case wherein a persons-in- charge appointed for a particular term, held that after the expiry of the term, the registrar is not bound to extend the term, he can on the other hand, appoint some other person or persons-in-charge to manage the affairs of the society. ( 15 ) IN M. Ranga Reddy v. State s Case (supra) a division bench of this court considering the provisions of the act held that the spirit and scheme of the act requires elections to be held before the terms of the incumbent committee expires. Appointing the official persons-in-charge and keeping them in office for long periods as a general rule is equally contrary to the spirit and scheme of the act. The angle from which the matter should be approached is not whether the elected committee has a right to continue in office beyond its term. The proper approach is whether it is permissible for the government not to hold elections and appoint persons-in-charge for long periods. ( 16 ) IN M. Ranga Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1990 (3) ALT 231, case division bench of this court once again considering the same provisions upheld the action on the part of the government in extending the maximum term of person-in-charge appointed thereunder as valid. ( 16 ) IN M. Ranga Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1990 (3) ALT 231, case division bench of this court once again considering the same provisions upheld the action on the part of the government in extending the maximum term of person-in-charge appointed thereunder as valid. ( 17 ) IN Elakolanu Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Limited v. Government of A. P. , 2002 Supp (1) ALD 352, case a division bench of this court considering the same provision held that elected members of the committee of the society on the expiry of their tenure have no right to be appointed as persons- in-charge till the next election. It lies within the discretion of the appropriate authority whether to appoint them or not. When they have not exercised their discretion arbitrarily, court cannot interfere. ( 18 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid provisions, it only follows that absolute discretion has been conferred on the authority under Section 32 (7) (a) of the act for making such appointment of persons-in- charge. Further, the petitioners as such have no locus standi to seek any extension of the said period or to continue as persons-in- charge as held by the division bench of this court in elakolanu s case. ( 19 ) IN the circumstances, it is to be held that the petitioners have no locus standi and cannot make any grievance against appointment of official persons-in-charge, more so in view of the statement made in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents herein that the government is keen on conducting elections on finalizing and implementing the proposed action plan to make the co-operatives healthy and viable latest by 31-3-2005 and every effort is being made to conduct elections even earlier. In the absence of serious challenge against such statement, i do not find any merits in the writ petitions. ( 20 ) THE writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed, however, with an observation that respondents would not in any way go beyond the period as specified in their own counter-affidavit in conducting the elections. No costs