Judgment : 1. Material on record shows that the petitioner is a member of Triupattur Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., fourth respondent herein. On 26.03.1997, she has availed a housing loan from the fourth respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. According to the petitioner, she should repay the said amount, within a period of 15 years, at the rate of Rs. 1805/-, per month. She started remitting the monthly instalment from 26.04.1997. 2. According to the petitioner, she was regular in making payments, and upto the year 2011, she has paid Rs.1,75,500/-. While so the Government have issued orders in G.O. Ms. No. 122 (Housing and Urban Development), dated 05.06.2013, granting certain privileges to the members, who had availed loans, from co-operative societies. According to the petitioner, as per the said G.O., the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Chennai, second respondent herein, has issued a circular, relating to waiver of over due interest and granted concession in paying interest. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the light of the abovesaid G.O., the petitioner has made a representation to the fourth respondent on 19.06.2013, to waive the loan amount and interest. The petitioner has not received any reply. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to give the benefits, for settling the loan amount, by considering his representation, dated 19.06.2013 and release the property from all encumbrances. 4. The 4th respondent-Society has filed a counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner, being the member of the 4th respondent-Society, bearing No.2550, availed a Housing loan, for Rs.1,20,000/-, at the rate of 16.5% per annum, for a period of 15 years, on Equal Monthly Instalment at Rs.1,803/-. A mortgage deed, dated 17.03.1997, was also executed between the petitioner and the Society. The petitioner has failed to make payments, as agreed upon and hence, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Vellore, initiated Arbitration Proceedings in ARC. No. 717/98-99, for a sum of Rs.1,38,903/- and that an award was passed by the Arbitrator/Co-operative Sub-Registrar, Tirupattur, on 23.03.1999, directing the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 1,47,853/-, with interest at 18%. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner has failed to pay the award amount and hence, a demand notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar, Vellore, for initiating sale proceedings and that an auction was conducted. 1,47,853/-, with interest at 18%. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner has failed to pay the award amount and hence, a demand notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar, Vellore, for initiating sale proceedings and that an auction was conducted. But the petitioner has not been paid the amount. Finally, auction notice was issued on 19.06.2003 in C.E.P.No. 58/1999-2000, as there was no purchaser of the property. The Society has taken the said property to set off the balance loan amount of Rs.2,43,655/-. While the matter stood thus, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), had issued a Circular No.284, dated 02.07.2008, for waiver of penal interest for default members. The Circular was also made applicable to cases, where set off, has been made and that the waiver scheme enabled settling of amount, before 30.06.2011. He further submitted that as on 30.06.2011, the following amount were due and payable by the petitioner, Balance as on 30.06.2011 Principal Rs.1,20,000/- Interest Rs.1,68,544/- Penal Interest Rs. 2,63,671/- Set of document Charges Rs.29,396/- Insurance Rs.1,500/- Total Rs. 5,83,111/- As per the circular No. 284, dated 02.07.2008 Waiver allowed Demand Amount Rs.5,83,111/- As per circular 25% interest Rs. 42, 097/- Penal Interest Rs.2,40,748/- Waiver allowed amount Rs.2,82,845/- Petitioner has to pay the loan amount Rs.3,00,266/- 6. The 4th respondent has further submitted that the petitioner has paid only Rs.1,50,000/-, as on 30.06.2011 and that the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,266/- has not been paid by the petitioner. Hence, he has submitted that the petitioner has not remitted the amount and availed the waiver scheme in time. Therefore, the registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) and Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Federation, has issued another Circular No.312, dated 07.06.2013, for the benefit of the defaulters. As per the abovesaid Circular, the last date for availing the waiver amount is 30.09.2013. But in the latter Circular, the waiver scheme has not been made applicable to cases, where set off, has been made. Therefore, when the petitioner sent a letter to the 4th respondent-Society, seeking for waiver of the amount, the Society has replied that, as per the abovesaid Circular, the petitioner is not entitled to waive the loan amount. For the abovesaid reasons, the 4th respondent-Society has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. For the abovesaid reasons, the 4th respondent-Society has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. Clauses 4, 6 to 9 of the Circular No. 284, dated 02.07.2008, may applicable to the case of the petitioner, are extracted hereunder : “TAMIL” Translated version of the abovesaid clauses are as follows : “4. The beneficiaries who obtained loan above Rs.1,00,000/- and upto Rs.2,00,000/-and did not repay the said loan, and in the event of remitting the instalments of the principal amount, that were not paid as on 31.03.2008, and also 75% of the interest amount, 25% of the interest and the entire penal interest shall be waived for them. 6. The aforesaid waiver announced by the Government is also applicable to the members who have defaulted to pay the instalments and who are in the execution proceedings after obtaining the decree in the suit. It shall be brought to the status in which decree was not executed for the items for which decree was obtained in the suit, arrears in the instalments, interest and penal interest, shall be calculated and arrangement shall be made for according waiver to them. 7. The concession of waiver shall be accorded to the members who pay the entire arrears amount either totally or in instalments between 01.04.2008 and 30.09.2008, as per the scheme, if the instalments were not paid on 31.03.2008. 8. Penal interest shall not be collected for the principal amount remitted under this concession scheme between 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 in respect of the arrears in the principal amount pending as on 31.03.2008. Ordinary interest alone shall be collected. 9. If the members do not utilise this scheme completely within 30.09.2008, it shall be brought to the status prevailed on 31.03.2008, and the interest, penal interest and other costs, shall be calculated and shall be collected from 01.10.2008.” 8. As per Clause 14 of the above Circular, the benefit of waiver of interest, can be extended to those, whose property has also been attached and sale Certificate issued. Reading of the Circular Memorandum, dated 02.07.2008, shows that if the loanees, who had borrowed loans between Rs. As per Clause 14 of the above Circular, the benefit of waiver of interest, can be extended to those, whose property has also been attached and sale Certificate issued. Reading of the Circular Memorandum, dated 02.07.2008, shows that if the loanees, who had borrowed loans between Rs. 1,00,000/- and 2,00,000/- and which remained unpaid, they have to make a payment of the entire amount, along with 75% interest, on or before 31.03.2008, in which event, 25% of the interest and penal interest, would be waived. 9. As per the tabular column, stated supra, as on 30.06.2011, the total amount due and payable by the petitioner, was Rs. 5,83,111/-. As per the Circular No.284, dated 02.07.2008, the waiver amount allowed to the petitioner was Rs.2,82,845/-, ie., 25% interest equivalent to Rs.42,097/- and penal interest of Rs.2,40,748/-. It is the case of the 4th respondent that the petitioner has to pay a loan amount of Rs. 3,00,266/- on or before 30.06.2011, as per the Circular No.284, dated 02.07.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid only Rs. 1,50,000/- on 03.06.2011, and that a sum of Rs.1,50,266/-has not been paid, on or before the said date, for claiming the benefit under the waiver scheme. 10. Thus, it is evident that though the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Chennai, has issued Circular No. 284, dated 02.07.2008, granting certain benefits. The Petitioner has failed to avail the same. Subsequently, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), has issued another Circular, dated 07.06.2013, so as to enable the defaulters, to claim certain benefits. But perusal of the said circular shows that waiver scheme extended to other defaulters, has not been extended to cases, which were already set off. 11. As stated supra, for non-payment of the amount, as per the Arbitration Proceedings in ARC.No.717/98-99, dated 23.03.1999, proceedings have been initiated for bringing the property of the petitioner for auction, and as there were no bidders, the society has taken the property mortgaged, to set off the balance loan amount of Rs.2,43.655/- on 19.06.2003 in C.E.P.No.58/1999-2000. From the above, it could be deduced that the petitioner had a right to avail the benefit of availing the waiver scheme of deduction of 25% interest and penal interest, till 30.06.2011. Had the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,50,266/- on 30.06.2011, towards the loan borrowed in the year 1997, the Society would have considered the same. From the above, it could be deduced that the petitioner had a right to avail the benefit of availing the waiver scheme of deduction of 25% interest and penal interest, till 30.06.2011. Had the Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,50,266/- on 30.06.2011, towards the loan borrowed in the year 1997, the Society would have considered the same. But the latter waiver scheme of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing) and Tamil Nadu Housing Federation, by way of circular, dated 07.06.2013, is not applicable to set off cases. Therefore, the Petitioner has no legal or statutory right to claim, any benefit under the later Circular. 12. The word “right, or in its plural form “rights” is a common term of broad signification. It is a generic, abstract, and comprehensive term, having a wide scope of meaning in its various legal applications, and it has no satisfactory definition or explanation, except in connection with some concrete conception of thing out of which it grows. It may mean any legal right as the word is normally used, or it may be limited to some specific one of the large class of recognized “rights.” It may be a right to do something, to have something, to be something, or even to let alone; it may refer to a right or privilege to use a highway or other public facility, or to utilize one of the great institutions of nature, or, on the other hand, it may refer to personal liberty, security, health, or property. 13. In Wharton’s Law Lexicon, the word ‘Right’ means; (1) is a legally protected interest 2) is an averment of entitlement arising out of legal rules 3) right is an interest recognized and protected by moral or legal rules 4) right, comprehends every right known to the law. 14. In K.J. Aiyar’s Judicial Dictionary, the word ‘Right’ means; 1) a right is a legally protected interest, 2) a right is an interest which is recognized and protected by law. 15. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, the word ‘Right’ means, is where one hath a thing that was taken from another wrongfully, as by disseisin, discontinuance, or putting out, or such like, and the challenge or claime that he hath who should have the thing, is called right. 16. In Mr. ‘X’ Vs. 15. In Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, the word ‘Right’ means, is where one hath a thing that was taken from another wrongfully, as by disseisin, discontinuance, or putting out, or such like, and the challenge or claime that he hath who should have the thing, is called right. 16. In Mr. ‘X’ Vs. Hospital ‘Z’ reported in (1998) 8 SCC 296 , while considering the right of privacy and the violations of personal rights, the conflict between fundamental right of the parties, at paragraph No.15, the Apex Court explained the word “right” as follows : “RIGHT” is an interest recognized and Protected by moral or legal rules. It is an interest the violation of which would be a legal wrong. Respect for such interest would be a legal duty. That is how salmon has defined the “Right”. In order, therefore, that an interest becomes the subject of a legal right, it has to have not merely legal protection but also legal recognition. The elements of a “LEGAL BIGHT” are that the “right” is vested in a person and is available against a person who is under a corresponding obligation and duty to respect that right and has to act or forbear from acting in a manner so as to prevent the violation of the right. If, therefore, there is a legal right vested in a person, the latter can seek its protection against a person who is bound by a corresponding duty not to violate that right.” 17. A Prerogative writ, like, a Mandamus cannot be demanded exdebito justiatiae, but it can be issued by the court in its discretion, for which, it must be shown that, there is a non discretionary legal duty upon the authority against whom, the relief is sought for and that the person approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to prove that he has a legal right to be enforced against the authority, for the failure of performance of a legal or statutory duty by the authority against whom, the relief is sought for. 18. In view of the above, the petitioner has not made out a case for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.