JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. This common judgment shall govern disposal of the above five appeals and contempt case, arising out of the common order dated 30.10.2019 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, deciding the common issue raised in W.P.Nos.12031, 12032, 11383, 11393, 13318 and 13327 of 2019. 2. Assailing the said common order dated 30.10.2019, these appeals have been preferred in so far as W.P.Nos.12031, 11383, 13318, 13327 and 11393 of 2019 are concerned, while C.C.No.1129 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.13318 of 2019, alleging non-compliance of the order passed therein by the respondents. 3. W.P.Nos.13318 of 2019 and 13327 of 2019 were filed seeking to declare the proceedings issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Industries, Infrastructure, Investment and Commerce (Prog.II) Department, vide Memo dated 16.08.2019, and the proceedings of the Commissioner/ Director of the Handlooms and Textiles, Andhra Pradesh, vide letter dated 20.08.2019, and consequential proceedings of the Assistant Director of Handloom and Textiles, dated 29.08.2019, appointing respondents Nos.4 and 5 therein, as official persons-in-charge of the committees of the weavers societies, as illegal and arbitrary. It is further prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to continue the erstwhile managing committees headed by the writ petitioners as person-in-charge of committees of their respective societies till fresh elections of the managing committees of the societies are conducted. 4. W.P.No.11383 of 2019 and W.P.No.11393 of 2019 were filed seeking a direction to the Assistant Director of Handlooms and Textiles, YSR Kadapa District, to conduct elections of the Managing Committees of the 4th respondent-societies and, till such time, the persons-in-charge of the committees be appointed for administering the affairs of the societies. 5. W.P.No.12031 of 2019 was filed to declare the action of the respondents in appointing the official person-in-charge to the primary weavers co-operative society without extending the term of office of the existing person-in charge, consisting of the outgoing elected office bearers, as illegal and arbitrary. Consequential direction to withdraw the proceedings relating to appointment of an official person-in-charge and restore the existing person-in-charge committee and extend its term till elections are held, is also sought. 6. Learned single Judge, while considering the issue regarding appointment of the official person-in-charge, has considered the provision as enumerated under Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter be called as ‘Act’). 6. Learned single Judge, while considering the issue regarding appointment of the official person-in-charge, has considered the provision as enumerated under Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter be called as ‘Act’). While interpreting the said provision, reliance is placed upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M. Ranga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1989 AP 81 and the judgment in B. Kota Mallaiah v. Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad (1991) 3 ALT 433 (DB) and observed that the persons-in-charge have been appointed in mechanical manner. It is stated that the basic idea underlying in a case of co-operative society is that the members should be experts and able to manage the affairs of their own, and improve the functioning of societies and curtail mechanical loss. However, held that the appointment of the official persons-in-charge without extending the term of the existing persons-in-charge consisting of outgoing office bearers is not in conformity to law. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants, relying upon the judgment in Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhongir v. K. Gandaiah (1978) 1 APLJ 347 , submitted that when the person-in-charge was appointed for a short term, after its expiry, the Registrar is not bound to extend the said term and on the other hand, he can appoint some other person or persons in-charge to manage the affairs of the society. It is urged that the findings so recorded by the learned single Judge are wholly unsustainable. 8. On the other hand, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners, has argued in support of the findings so recorded by learned single Judge, stating that the societies to which elections are to be held are weavers cooperative societies. It is urged that the committees so constituted were having the experts in their respective fields and the appointment of the official persons-in-charge, by the orders impugned, is without application of mind and not in the fair administration or smooth functioning of the societies. It is urged that the committees so constituted were having the experts in their respective fields and the appointment of the official persons-in-charge, by the orders impugned, is without application of mind and not in the fair administration or smooth functioning of the societies. Learned senior counsel points out that the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, vide letter dated 25.06.2019, made a request to the Secretary to Government, Industries & Commerce Department, for extension of the period of the person-in charge committees beyond one-and-half year to manage the affairs of the Primary Handlooms Weavers Co-operative Societies in the State or to conduct the elections to the managing committees of the Societies. In the said letter, it was not proposed that the official persons-in-charge may be appointed to manage the affairs of the committees, however, appointing such officials, who are not experienced and qualified, as persons-in-charge, contrary to the request made, is improper. In view of the same, learned single Judge has rightly set aside the orders passed by the Government. 9. After advancing arguments by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners has given up the issue regarding Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Act for adjudication at appropriate stage in appropriate case. It is urged that the impugned proceedings dated 16.08.2019 and 20.08.2019 were based on the recommendation of the Director of the Handlooms and Textiles but the order passed by the Government is different from the request so made by the Director in his letter dated 25.06.2019. While passing the proceedings impugned, no reason to appoint official persons-in charge from the official staff, disagreeing with the said proposal, has been assigned. Therefore, learned single Judge has rightly set aside the proceedings impugned and, on this ground alone, the writ appeals may be dismissed. 10. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties and on perusal of the provisions of Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Act, it is clear that the orders may be passed by the Government or the Registrar for appointment of the person-in-charge to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding six months, whenever it is not possible to conduct election of members of the committee, and such period may be extended up to a maximum period of six years. In this context, the recommendation as made by the Director of Handlooms and Textiles, vide letter dated 25.06.2019, is required to be reproduced, which is as under: “In view of the above, I request the Government a view may kindly be taken and to issue appropriate orders to extend the period of Person-in-charge Committees beyond (1 ½) year to manage the affairs of the Primary Handloom Weavers Coop. Societies in the state (or) to conduct elections to the managing committee of Primary Handloom Weavers Coop. Societies as proposed in the reference 1st cited, so as to enable this office to issue necessary instructions to the District Level functionaries in the matter.” 11. On perusal of the said recommendation, it is crystal clear that the extension of the person-in charge committees was sought for, but a request for appointment of an officer of the State as official person-in charge was not made. Nothing is available on record to show that contrary to the request, what persuaded the Government to take a different view from appointment of person-in charge committees and to appoint the officer of the State as official person-in-charge to the weavers’ societies. No material has been brought on record to demonstrate as to why the proposal so made by the Director in the letter dated 25.06.2019 has not been accepted by the Government and why the officer of the State has been appointed as official person in-charge. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, the order/proceedings impugned passed by the Government, dated 16.08.2019 and 20.08.2019 and the consequential proceedings dated 29.08.2019, are without due application of mind. As such, the same are unsustainable and liable to be set aside on that score. Be that as it may, the learned single Judge set aside the same on a different point by giving cogent reasons but the result would be the same. On the other point, i.e., regarding Section 32(7)(a)(i) of the Act, the argument has been given up in these appeals for adjudication at appropriate stage, however, in our view, leaving this question open, this Court can dismiss the writ appeals on the other ground. 12. Subject to the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the common order of the learned single Judge and accordingly dismiss the appeals. 12. Subject to the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the common order of the learned single Judge and accordingly dismiss the appeals. It is made clear here that in the event of Government issuing any fresh orders in terms of the provisions of the Act, the aggrieved parties would be at liberty to take recourse to law. 13. So far as C.C.No.1129 of 2019, which has been filed alleging noncompliance of the order passed in W.P.No.13318 of 2019, is concerned, as the order of the learned single Judge has been upheld, it is to observe that the respondent authorities shall forthwith comply with the orders passed by the learned single Judge, subject to observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, the contempt case stands disposed of. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. No order as to costs.