ORDER Shri A.K. Sethi, Senior Advocate with Shri S.S. Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner heard on admission. By this petition, pro bono publico, the Petitioner seeks enforcement of the provisions of Section 77 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 on an interpretation of the said provision to the effect that apart from the appointment of the Chairman of the Co-operative Tribunal, it is imperative for the State Government to appoint one or two members along with the Chairman. The extract of Section 77 with which we are concerned reads as under: Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal. (1) The State Government shall, by notification, constitute a Tribunal called the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Tribunal to exercise the powers and to discharge the functions conferred or imposed on the Tribunal by or under this Act. (2) The Tribunal shall consist of the Chairman and two other members. (3)(a) No person shall be qualified to be Chairman of the Tribunal unless he had been a Judge of a High Court or has held the office of a District Judge for not less than five years. (b) of the other two members, one shall be an officer of Co-operative Department not below the rank of Joint Registrar and the other shall be non-official closely associated with the co-operative movement or an Advocate or a Pleader having practical experience in the co-operative movement for a period of not less than fifteen years; Provided that if the State Government thinks fit, the Tribunal, may consist of a single person. Explanation.- For the purpose of this Sub-section "non official" shall mean a person who on the date of his appointment as a member, does not hold any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State. Dwelling on section (3)(a)(b), Learned Counsel submits that the proviso appearing u/s 77(3)(b) qualifies the appointment of the persons concerned in Clause (b) with the result the words single person used in the proviso refers only to one of the two members which are required to constitute the Tribunal under Sub-section (2) of Section 77. We are afraid, the interpretation is farfetched and not in consonance with the scheme of Section 77. We are afraid, the interpretation is farfetched and not in consonance with the scheme of Section 77. As would be seen from the provision of Sub-section (1), the State Government is enjoined with the duty to constitute a Tribunal called the M.P. State Co-operative Tribunal to exercise the powers and to discharge the functions conferred or imposed on the Tribunal under the Act. Sub-section (2) says that Tribunal shall consist of Chairman and two other Members. The qualification of the Chairman have been laid down in Sub-section (3)(a) while of the Members in Sub-Section 3(b). It is under this provision that the proviso leaves the discretion with the Government if it thinks fit that the Tribunal may constitute of a single person. The expression "person" embraces within it Chairman as also the Members who can be appointed u/s 77. Under these circumstances, since there is already a Chairman of the Tribunal, it is not imperative for the Government to appoint one or two members under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3). Since the statutory provision itself makes it discretionary for the Government to appoint members or to permit the Tribunal to be manned by a single person and as it is not disputed that Chairman has been appointed, no writ can be issued directing the State Government to appoint the member as desired in this Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Consequently, it is not necessary to pass any order on IA 9137/2006 seeking exemption from deposit of the security amount. Final Result : Dismissed