ORDER: The petitioner challenges APIIC-Inter Office Memo vide IOM No.APIIC/LAC/Vjwda/TVNMIASS/IALA-JAN/2019-20 dt:27.07.2020 issued by 2nd respondent enhancing the term of existing Managing Committee of the 6th respondent society from 3 years to 5 years contrary to the Office Memo IOM.No.APIIC/LAC/2020, dated 18.03.2020 of 3rd respondent and the report dated 09.06.2020 of 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the revised guidelines for the functioning of Industrial Area Local Authorities (IALAs) and Service Societies, 2013 and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein to conduct the elections for the Managing Committee of the 6th respondent society and pass such other orders which are deemed fit. 2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus : (a) In order to provide civic services in APIIC industrial areas which were neglected by local bodies, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has conferred local authority status to APIIC Limited by amending the local Acts i.e., The Panchayatraj Act, the A.P. Municipalities Act and the Municipal Corporation Act etc. and also transferred certain powers of the local bodies to APIIC. The 1st respondent in order to promote local self governance of the industrial area evolved the concept of Industrial Areas Services Society involving the tax payers community and the notified industrial area in the management /maintenance of industrial areas. The service societies registered under the Societies Registration Act were made as nodal agencies to assist in collection of the property taxes and maintenance of civic services in the industrial areas. (b) The 6th respondent was registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and its term was fixed as three years by 1st respondent as per the guidelines. While so, on the expiry of the term of the previous managing committee of the 6th respondent society, election notification was issued on 30.03.2017, wherein the Election Officer mentioned that the term of the managing committee of 6th respondent society would be for a period of three years. Accordingly, the election was held on 21.04.2017 and the managing committee has assumed office on 05.05.2017. The petitioner is one of the members of 6th respondent society. As per the rules in vogue, the term of the managing committee will be for three years from the date of approval of the election results by Zonal Manager and the term will expire by 20.04.2020. The petitioner is one of the members of 6th respondent society. As per the rules in vogue, the term of the managing committee will be for three years from the date of approval of the election results by Zonal Manager and the term will expire by 20.04.2020. While so, the Chairman of 6th respondent society submitted a representation dated 24.01.2020 to 1st respondent requesting to enhance the term of the present Managing Committee from three years to five years. The 3rd respondent, who is the Executive Director of APIIC Limited, on examining the rules in force, informed vide his Memo IOM No.APIIC/LAC/2020 dated 18.03.2020 to 6th respondent that the term of the present Managing Committee would be three years i.e., from 21.04.2017 to 20.04.2020, however, the term of the ensuing committee would be five years as per the Board resolution dated 20.04.2017. The 4th respondent issued letter dated 20.03.2020 to 6th respondent stating that the term of existing Managing Committee would expire by 20.04.2020 and the term of the ensuing committee would be for five years and he requested the Managing Committee to determine the election date for next election. Questioning the said letter dated 20.03.2020 issued by 4th respondent, the Chairman of 6th respondent society filed WP.No.8563/2020 before this High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to continue the existing Managing Committee of 6th respondent for a period of five years from the date of election. However, this Court was not inclined to pass any orders. (c) While so, it came to light that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 27.07.2020. It also came to light that the 5th respondent herein submitted a detailed report vide Lr.No.ZM/APIIC/VJA/JAN/IAIA/2020 dated 09.06.2020 with regard to the tenure of the Managing Committee of 6th respondent society and on perusal of the said report dated 09.06.2020, it is manifestly clear that the term of the Managing Committee of 6th respondent expired on 20.04.2020. However, the 2nd respondent herein issued Memo vide IOM No.APIIC/LAC/Vjwda/TVNMIASS/IALA-JAN/2019-20 dated 27.07.2020 enhancing the term of existing Managing Committee of 6th respondent from three years to five years on the ground that the elections of the society were held after the date of communication of Board minutes dated 20.04.2017 (whereas elections were held on 21.04.2017). However, the 2nd respondent herein issued Memo vide IOM No.APIIC/LAC/Vjwda/TVNMIASS/IALA-JAN/2019-20 dated 27.07.2020 enhancing the term of existing Managing Committee of 6th respondent from three years to five years on the ground that the elections of the society were held after the date of communication of Board minutes dated 20.04.2017 (whereas elections were held on 21.04.2017). The impugned proceedings of 2nd respondent are erroneous for the reason that the election notification was issued on 30.03.2017 as per the revised guidelines for the functioning of Industrial Area Local Authorities (IALAs) and Service Societies, 2013 wherein the Election Officer mentioned in the notification that the term of the Managing Committee of 6th respondent would be for a period of three years. The election was conducted on 21.04.2017 in terms of the aforesaid revised guidelines and the said notification was not under the amended guidelines issued by the Board in its meeting on 20.04.2017. The Board Minutes held on 20.04.2017 is only applicable to the ensuing Managing Committee and the Board Minutes are not applicable to the existing Managing Committee. If the impugned proceedings dated 27.07.2020 allowed to stand, it would occasion failure and miscarriage of justice. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed counter with the following averments : (a) The APIIC is an undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and it is registered Company. Its main objects are acquisition of lands, development of lands providing with infrastructural facilities in industrial areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh, allotment of plots/sheds to the entrepreneurs in the industrial areas for industrial purposes. (b) Learned counsel for petitioner has no locus standi to file present Writ Petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. (c) The 6th respondent is not a statutory body but a society registered under Societies Act. Its role is to assist Industrial Area Local Authorities (IALAs) in the notified industrial area and does not exercise any statutory functions. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court. (d) It is true that the APIIC has formulated the revised guidelines for the functioning of IALAs and Service Societies in the 196th APIIC Board Meeting held on 04.10.2013. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court. (d) It is true that the APIIC has formulated the revised guidelines for the functioning of IALAs and Service Societies in the 196th APIIC Board Meeting held on 04.10.2013. As per the guidelines referred to at para-VI, the Service Society will elect Managing Committee having 5 Office bearers namely (1) Chairman (2) Vice Chairman (3) Secretary (4) Joint Secretary (5) Treasurer and (6) Members not exceeding 10% of the number of units in that IALA. The term of the Managing Committee will be for three years from the date of approval of election results by the Zonal Manager i.e., the 5th respondent. The Election Officer and Deputy Director of GM, DIC, Krishna has issued election notification dated 30.03.2017 and election was conducted on 21.04.2017 and results were declared on the same date. It was mentioned by the Election Officer that the duration of Managing Committee will be valid from 21.04.2017 to 20.04.2020. In the meantime the APIIC 210th Board meeting was held on 27.02.2017 and a decision was approved for the enhancement of the term of the Managing Committee from 3 years to 5 years as per the Provisions of Local Bodies i.e., Section 13(1) of A.P. Panchayati Raj Act and Section 20(1)(a) of A.P Municipality Act, 1965 vide point No.11 of revised board agenda item 30. The Minutes of the 210th Board Meeting was communicated to 4th and 5th respondents by the 1st respondent vide IOM No. APIIC/LAC/IALA Meeting/2016, dated 20.04.2017 for election of the revised term of the Managing Committee wherein the period of the Managing Committee is changed from 3 years to 5 years. In the IOM dated 20.04.2017 it is mentioned to implement the minutes with immediate effect in APIIC IALAs. (e) While admitting that the Chairman of the 6th respondent filed W.P.No.8563/2020 in view of communication of 3rd respondent that the term of the Managing Committee would be only 3 years, it is pleaded in the counter that on the representation of 6th respondent dated 24.02.2020, the matter was reviewed and basing on the Board decision in the 210th meeting of APIIC dated 27.02.2017 the term was enhanced from 3 years to 5 years and the said fact was communicated on 20.04.2017. (f) In the counter, it is further submitted that one V.Raghava Rao filed WP.No.509/2021, wherein this Court passed an interim suspension order dated 07.01.2021 of the Memo dated 27.07.2020 and consequently, the 4th respondent addressed a letter to vacate and handover the office of the 6th respondent in view of the said interim order. The respondents ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The 6th respondent filed counter contending thus: (a) Denying the petition averment that in the election notification the term of the Society was fixed as 3 years, it is contended by 6th respondent that neither the election notification dated 30.03.2017 nor the election schedule dated 30.03.2017 specified the term of the Managing Committee and both the aforesaid notifications were silent regarding the term. The respondents 1 & 2 have already made a decision regarding enhancement of the term of the Managing Committee of 6th respondent from 3 years to 5 years by virtue of the communication of the approved minutes of 210th Board meeting held on 27.07.2017 and thereby clearly specified the enhancement of the term of Managing Committee of 6th respondent from 3 years to 5 years. (b) The 6th respondent denied the petition averment that on the representation of 6th respondent to 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent has issued a Memo IOM No.APIIC/LAC/2020 dated 18.03.2020 and 4th respondent also issued a letter dated 20.03.2020 to 6th respondent Society stating that its term expires by 20.03.2020. It is contended that said averment is false and without verification of true facts. It is further contended that the previous Managing Committee of 6th respondent was elected in the year 2014, wherein the present affidavit holder was the Chairman. On the requests of many members of the 6th respondent Society and in the best interest of the Society, the Managing Committee held a meeting dated 22.02.2016, wherein it was proposed to enhance the term of the Managing Committee from 3 years to 5 years. Thereafter, a General Body Meeting was held on 29.04.2016 wherein resolution No.6 was passed by the approval of the members of the Society to the effect that the term of the Managing Committee shall be enhanced from 3 years to 5 years. Therefore, a resolution was passed on 29.04.2016 itself. Thereafter, a General Body Meeting was held on 29.04.2016 wherein resolution No.6 was passed by the approval of the members of the Society to the effect that the term of the Managing Committee shall be enhanced from 3 years to 5 years. Therefore, a resolution was passed on 29.04.2016 itself. Thereafter to seek ratification/further approval of the resolution dated 29.04.2016, the affidavit holder addressed a representation in person along with the Managing Committee to 1st respondent on 12.07.2016. Subsequently in the 210th Board meeting held by 1st respondent on 27.02.2017, the term enhancement subject was noted as Minute No.11 and approved by 1st respondent and the same has been implemented with immediate effect i.e., 27.02.2017 itself. The said approval and implementation of enhancement of the term of Managing Committee has been communicated to the General Manager (LAC) by the Secretarial Wing vide Inter Office Memo No.SW/BM/210/ATR/16-4 dated 23.03.2017. Thereafter, on an Inter Office Memo vide IOM No.APIIC/LAC/IALA Meeting/2016 dated 20.04.2017, the approvals of 210th Board Meeting have been communicated. Subsequently the election notification for election of Managing Committee for 6th respondent Society has been issued on 30.03.2017 and schedule was notified. Neither the election notification nor election schedule contain the specification for the term of elected Managing Committee. When the said fact was questioned, 1st respondent has stated that the term would be in accordance with the implemented term of 5 years by virtue of the decision made in 210th Board Meeting held on 27.02.2017. (c) Subsequently under the leadership of the affidavit holder their panel got elected as Managing Committee in the election held on 21.04.2017 for 6th respondent society and he was elected as Chairman along with other members of the Managing Committee. Later the affidavit holder addressed a representation to 3rd respondent informing him about the decision taken by 1st respondent and requested him to acknowledge the said fact. However, to his utter surprise 3rd respondent issued Inter Office Memo vide IOM No.APIIC/LAC/2020 dated 18.03.2020. Aggrieved by the said Memo, the affidavit holder filed W.P.No.8563/2020 challenging the said Memo. However, after filing of the writ petition, 2nd respondent by acknowledging the decision made by 1st respondent on 27.02.2017 enhancing the term of 6th respondent Society from 3 years to 5 years, has issued an Inter Office Memo in IOM No.APIIC/LAC /VJWDA/TVNMIASS/IALA-JAN/2019-20 dated 27.07.2020 enhancing the term from 3 years to 5 years. However, after filing of the writ petition, 2nd respondent by acknowledging the decision made by 1st respondent on 27.02.2017 enhancing the term of 6th respondent Society from 3 years to 5 years, has issued an Inter Office Memo in IOM No.APIIC/LAC /VJWDA/TVNMIASS/IALA-JAN/2019-20 dated 27.07.2020 enhancing the term from 3 years to 5 years. The 2nd respondent by communicating the said Memo dated 27.07.2020 informed the affidavit holder to withdraw W.P.No.8563/2020 and accordingly, he withdrew the writ petition. It is further submitted that the purpose of requesting for enhancement of the term of the Managing Committee of the Society is to see that the term of the Managing Committee should be on par with other elected posts in the other elected bodies in Municipalities, Local Bodies, Legislative Assembly and Parliament. It will save the expenditure on conducting elections by the 6th respondent. Further, by the enhancement of the term, development programmes which were introduced by the previous Managing Committee can be sustained. Thus, the Memo dated 18.03.2020 was issued by the 3rd respondent without verification of the decision made by the 1st respondent and the said mistake committed by the 3rd respondent was corrected by the 2nd respondent by issuing Inter Office Memo dated 27.07.2020. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and same may be dismissed. 5. The petitioner filed reply affidavit stating that he has locus to file the writ petition inasmuch as he is a member in the Vijayawada Notified Municipal Corporation Industrial Areas Service Society, APIIC–IALA, Jawahar Autonagar, Vijayawada and that he has been regularly paying property tax with Assessment No.36420 and his name is found in the voters list also. 6. This Court on 07.01.2021 granted interim suspension as prayed for by the petitioner. 7. Heard the arguments of Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri J. Ugra Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5, and M/s. Pillix Law Firm, learned counsel for 6th respondent. 8. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner Sri P.Durga Prasad is that the election notification for the existing Industrial Areas Service Society i.e., 6th respondent was issued on 30.03.2017 i.e., as per the old guidelines where under, as per guideline No.VI, the term of the Managing Committee is three years. As the election was held and the result was declared on 21.04.2017, the term of the existing Committee shall expire by 20.04.2020. As the election was held and the result was declared on 21.04.2017, the term of the existing Committee shall expire by 20.04.2020. He would further argue, the revised guidelines were issued by the APIIC Executive Director through Inter Office Memo No.APIIC/LAC/IALA/Meeting/2016 dated 20.04.2017 stating in the said memo that the approved minutes of the 210th Board Meeting held on 27.02.2017 which was communicated along with his memo should be implemented with immediate effect by APIIC IALAs. Learned counsel would submit that as per the said Memo, the APIIC Board accepted the recommendations of the Committee appointed by it to study the functioning and performance of the APIIC IALAs. One of the recommendations given by Committee was to review the term of the Managing Committees of IALAs from 3 years to 5 years. He would emphasize that though the Board Meeting was said to be held on 27.02.2017, however, its resolutions were communicated to APIIC IALAs and all other concerned by the Executive Director through Inter Office Memo only on 20.04.2017 and by that time, already election notification was issued on 30.03.2017 as per the existing guidelines. This Inter Office Memo dated 20.04.2017 was issued only one day prior to the date of election scheduled on 21.04.2017. Therefore, as per law, the election shall be deemed to have held as per the existing or old guidelines as per which the term of the Managing Committee was only 3 years. The new term of 5 years will be applicable to the next election onwards provided the revised term of the office is not further revised in future. 9. Per contra, it is the contention of learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 Sri J.Ugra Narasimha and learned counsel for the respondent No.6 Sri N. Ashwani Kumar that the APIIC Board has the plenary powers to issue guidelines to IALAs regarding the constitution and functions. In that process, for reviewing the functions and performance of APIIC IALAs, a Committee was constituted to make recommendations to APIIC and the Committee submitted its recommendations which were placed before the APIIC’s 210th Board Meeting held on 27.02.2017, wherein the Board has approved the recommendations, one of which is the enhancement of the term of the IALA Managing Committees from 3 years to 5 years. While so, the election notification was issued much later on 30.03.2017 and election was held on 21.04.2017. While so, the election notification was issued much later on 30.03.2017 and election was held on 21.04.2017. In the meanwhile, the Board resolution was communicated by the Executive Director on 20.04.2017. Therefore, the enhanced term upto 5 years is applicable to the existing 6th respondent Committee also. The Executive Director-II /3rd respondent issued Inter Office Memo dated 18.03.2020 erroneously interpreting the effect of the 210th Board Meeting stating that the term of the present Managing Committee would be 3 years only i.e., from 21.04.2017 to 20.04.2020 as per the rules in vague and the term of ensuing (next) committee would be 5 years as per the board resolution communicated to IALAs on 20.04.2017. Both the learned counsel vehemently argued that the interpretation of the 3rd respondent is quite erroneous inasmuch as he failed to consider the fact that the board resolution was communicated to all the IALAs on 20.04.2017 with a direction to follow the same with immediate effect i.e., from 20.04.2017 itself. The election for the 6th respondent was held subsequently on 21.04.2017, thereby the term of the 6th respondent committee would be for a period of 5 years as per the new guidelines but not 3 years as misinterpreted by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, subsequently, the 2nd respondent issued the correct interpretation vide Memo dated 27.07.2020 stating that the elections of the society were held on 21.04.2017 i.e., after the date of communication of the Board Minutes i.e., 20.04.2017 and therefore, the term of the Managing Committee of the 6th respondent would be 5 years. They thus argued that the impugned Inter Office Memo dated 27.07.2020 being the correct interpretation on factually and legal angles. The writ petition challenging the same may be dismissed. 10. Additionally, Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for 6th respondent would argue that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini for the reason that the 6th respondent society was registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act and it is purely a private body and not discharging any public functions and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable questioning its functions. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notification, there is an alternative and equally efficacious remedy available under the A.P Societies Registration Act, 2001. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notification, there is an alternative and equally efficacious remedy available under the A.P Societies Registration Act, 2001. In this regard, he placed reliance on P. Shivaraj Sampathy V. The Commissioner and Inspector General, Stamps and Registration, 2010(5) ALD 516 = MANU/AP/0112/2010, Ambati Ramaiah V. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2012(5) ALT 383 = MANU/AP/0341/2012 and Panguluri Srinivasa Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2017(6) ALD 14 = MANU/AP/0510/2017. 11. The points for consideration are (1) Whether the contention of the respondents that in view of the availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 23 of A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limini is sustainable? (2) If Point No.1 is held negatively, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed? 12. Point No.1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, considering the proposal of the Director of Industries for the establishment of a separate Corporation for the Development of Industrial Infrastructure for the speedy promotion and development of Industrial Growth in the State, accorded sanction for establishment of separate Corporation in the State namely, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation Limited (APIIC). It was formed in the year 1973 by virtue of G.O.No.831, dated 10.09.1973 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The APIIC was registered as Joint Stock Company under the Companies Act. The Government transferred industrial estates /areas belonging to the Government in the Industries Department to the Corporation. The main aim of the APIIC is to formulate, promote, finance, aid, assist, establish, manage and control schemes, projects, provide and develop infrastructure facilities including factory sites, factory sheds, godowns, marketing facilities, warehouses, facilities of communications, power, water drainage, housing, hospitals and other services to promote and assist the rapid and orderly establishment, growth and development of industries and commerce in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 13. In course of time, procuring the land from the Revenue Department of the Government and also through other sources like local bodies, the APIIC/1st respondent has set up industrial areas in the outskirts of Grampanchayats, Municipalities and Corporations. With the efflux of time, townships are formed in the industrial areas set up by the APIIC. 13. In course of time, procuring the land from the Revenue Department of the Government and also through other sources like local bodies, the APIIC/1st respondent has set up industrial areas in the outskirts of Grampanchayats, Municipalities and Corporations. With the efflux of time, townships are formed in the industrial areas set up by the APIIC. The industries, their offices and the people residing in and around those industrial areas felt the need for civic amenities like sanitation, drainage, electrification, roads, water, schools, medical care etc. As the industrial areas are generally located far away from the concerned local bodies i.e., Grampanchayats /Municipalities /Corporations, it became difficult for the local bodies to extend the civic services to the industrial areas. As the civic services in APIIC industrial areas were neglected by the local bodies, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in order to remedy the situation, conferred local authority status to APIIC through certain provisions of the concerned enactments as follows: (a) Section 147 of the A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994 takes care of transfer of powers and functions of Grampanchayats to other local authorities. Section 147 of the said Act reads thus: 147. Transfer of functions of gram panchayats to other local authorities or vice versa :- Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in any law relating to other local authorities, the Government may, in consultation with the [Mandal Praja Parishad] or [Zilla Praja Parishad] or other local authority as the case may be, and the gram panchayat concerned, by notification and subject to such restrictions and conditions and to such control and revision as may be specified therein, direct that, - (a) any power or function vested in the gram panchayat by or under this Act, shall be transferred to and exercised and performed by the [Mandal Praja Parishad] or [Zilla Praja Parishad] or the other local authority; and (b) any power or function vested in the [Mandal Praja Parishad] or [Zilla Praja Parishad] or the other local authority shall be transferred to and exercised and performed by the gram panchayat. Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, ‘ local authority’ includes, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited. Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, ‘ local authority’ includes, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited. Note :- This Section corresponds to Section 230 of A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (Act 2 of 1964)” (b) The meaning of the ‘local authority’ has been perspicuously stated in the explanation appended to the Section to the effect that local authority includes A.P. Industrial Infrastructural Corporation (APIIC) Limited. The powers /functions enumerated in certain Sections of A.P. Panchayatraj Act, 1994 were transferred to APIIC by the Government. (c) An akin provision has been inserted in the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. Section 389B of the said Act reads thus: 389B. Power to transfer functions of Municipalities to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force relating to the Municipalities or the notified area Committees, the Government may, in consultation with any Municipality or the notified area Committee, as the case may be, and also the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, and subject to such restrictions and conditions including those relating to the remittance of such percentage of the property tax to a Municipality or to a notified area Committee and to such control and revision as may be specified therein direct that any power or function vested in the Municipality or the notified area Committee by or under this Act shall be transferred to and exercised and performed by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (d) Similar provision is also created in Section 679 of the HMC Act, 1955. Thus, it is clear that the powers of the local bodies have been delegated to the APIIC/1st respondent to facilitate the maintenance of civic services in APIIC industrial areas. 14. While so, to promote local self-governance of the industrial areas, the APIIC has evolved the concept of Industrial Area Local Authorities (IALA) and Industrial Areas Service Societies by involving the tax-payers’ community in the notified industrial areas for the management and maintenance of the industrial areas. The Service Societies are formed by registration under A.P Societies Registration Act, 2001. The Service Societies have been nominated by APIIC as its Nodal Agencies to assist in collection of property taxes and maintenance of civic services in the industrial areas since such maintenance was neglected by the concerned local bodies. 15. The Service Societies are formed by registration under A.P Societies Registration Act, 2001. The Service Societies have been nominated by APIIC as its Nodal Agencies to assist in collection of property taxes and maintenance of civic services in the industrial areas since such maintenance was neglected by the concerned local bodies. 15. Be that it may, for proper functioning of IALAs and Service Societies, the APIIC /1st respondent framed guidelines. A copy of previous guidelines issued by APIIC vide Circular No.APIIC/IALA/HO/Guidelines/2013-200, dated 10.10.2013, was filed along with the material papers by the writ petitioner. These guidelines would show that the IALAs are exercising the functions of Municipal Corporation /Municipality /Grampanchayat with a condition that 35% or 50% of the property tax collected has to be remitted to the parent local body. These guidelines would further show that APIIC is organized in the form of Zonal Offices which are headed by Zonal Managers. The activities of all Zonal Offices are coordinated by the APIIC Head Office which is headed by Managing Director. The APIIC Head Office plays some of the key roles with regard to IALA and Service Society, one of which is to provide directions /guidance to IALAs /Service Societies for taking any new initiative meant for industrial development. Thus, it can be said that APIIC is the Apex Body which regulates the activities of IALAs and Service Societies by issuing guidelines and also by providing funding support to them. (a) Then structure of the service society is concerned, it is mentioned in the guidelines that the service societies will comprise of all the industrial units which were allotted plots by APIIC within the limits of the Industrial Park /Industrial Estate /SEZ. The Service Society will elect Managing Committee having 5 office bearers viz., (1) Chairman, (2) Vice Chairman, (3) Secretary, (4) Joint Secretary and (5) Office Treasurer. Most importantly it is mentioned in the guidelines that the term of the Managing Committee will be for 3 years from the date or approval of the election results by Zonal Manager concerned. The Service Society’s main role is to promote the concept of self-governance i.e., they should participate in all decisions which concern them, in order to coordinate the functioning of the IALA, to involve the constituent industrial units in different development activities within the IALA area. The Service Society’s main role is to promote the concept of self-governance i.e., they should participate in all decisions which concern them, in order to coordinate the functioning of the IALA, to involve the constituent industrial units in different development activities within the IALA area. (b) Thus a perusal of the guidelines would show that Services Societies are originated by registration under Societies Registration Act, 2001 so as to look after the maintenance, as well as, different development activities in the concerned industrial areas. They will function as per the guidelines issued by the APIIC. 16. While so, a perusal of the Inter Office Memo No. APIIC/LAC/IALA Meeting/2016, dated 20.04.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent, a copy of which is filed along with the material papers would show that APIIC appointed a Committee to make recommendations for sorting out the issues raised by the Service Societies and the Committee accordingly made detailed study in its meetings held on 26.07.2016 and 05.08.2016 and made recommendations on those issues. One of the recommendations was with regard to enhance the term of the Managing Committee to 5 years from 3 years from the date of election of the members. Those recommendations were placed before the APIIC in its 210th Board meeting and some of the recommendations, particularly, the recommendation relating to enhancement of the term of the Managing Committee were approved by the APIIC. The 2nd respondent, in his IOM dt: 20.04.2017, while communicating the minutes of the 210th Board Meeting held on 27.02.2017, directed all the IALAs to implement the same with immediate effect. 17. Be that it may, on the representation of the Chairman of the 6th respondent to 3rd respondent seeking clarification on the term of the present Managing Committee, the 3rd respondent in his Inter Office Memo No.APIIC/LAC/2020, dated 18.03.2020, clarified that the term of the present Managing Committee would be 3 years only as the Election Officer confirmed the term of the members for 3 years from 21.04.2017 to 20.04.2020 as per the rules in vogue. He further clarified that the term of the ensuing Committee would be 5 years as per Board resolution communicated under letter dated 20.04.2017. Thus, in the aforesaid Inter Office Memo, the 3rd respondent clarified that the enhanced term as per the board resolution would apply to ensuing or next committee but not to the existing Committee. He further clarified that the term of the ensuing Committee would be 5 years as per Board resolution communicated under letter dated 20.04.2017. Thus, in the aforesaid Inter Office Memo, the 3rd respondent clarified that the enhanced term as per the board resolution would apply to ensuing or next committee but not to the existing Committee. It seems, aggrieved by the said interpretation, the 6th respondent filed W.P.No.8563/2020. While pending the said Writ Petition, he made two representations dated 24.01.2020 and 15.07.2020 seeking enhancement of the term of the present Managing Committee from 3 years to 5 years. This time the 2nd respondent in the impugned Inter Office Memo dated 27.07.2020 gave a clarification that since the election of the society was held after the date of communication of the board minutes i.e., 20.04.2017 (election was held on 21.04.2017), the term of the Managing Committee of the 6th respondent would be 5 years as per the Board resolution communicated. 18. Thus, we have two different interpretations. The first interpretation was given by the 3rd respondent in his Inter Office Memo dated 18.03.2020 stating that the term of the present Managing Committee /6th respondent is only 3 years whereas the second interpretation was given by the 2nd respondent in his Inter Office Mem dated 27.07.2020 stating that the term of the present Managing Committee /6th respondent will be for 5 years. The later interpretation is now under challenge in this Writ Petition. 19. Now, coming to the maintainability of the writ petition, a careful study of the organizational set up of APIIC, IALAs and Service Societies would give an understanding that the IALAs and Service Societies will function as per the guidelines issued by the APIIC from time to time as already stated supra. The controversy is with regard to the latest guidelines issued relating to the enhancement of the term of the Managing Committee in the 210th Board Meeting of the APIIC. The applicability of the term of 5 years has been interpreted divergently by respondent Nos.2 and 3. So in essence, what is challenged in this writ petition is the interpretation of one of the guidelines of APIIC relating to the term of the Managing Committee /6th respondent. The challenge is not with regard to the functioning or maintenance activities of the 6th respondent. So in essence, what is challenged in this writ petition is the interpretation of one of the guidelines of APIIC relating to the term of the Managing Committee /6th respondent. The challenge is not with regard to the functioning or maintenance activities of the 6th respondent. As already discussed supra, the APIIC is a Government Corporation and it is one of the instrumentalities of the State Government which is intended to promote the rapid development of industries in the State. It performs the public duties by creating industrial infrastructure to the enthusiastic entrepreneurs and industrialists. When one of the guidelines issued by the APIIC has been controversially interpreted by two of its Executive Directors and thus created commotion and thereby effecting the rights of the members to contest in the elections of the Managing Committee, the petitioner being one of the members of the 6th respondent- Committee, can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, in my considered view, the writ petition is maintainable. In this regard, the argument of Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the 6th respondent that the 6th respondent is only a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001 and therefore the grievance against it can be redressed under Section 23 of Societies Registration Act, 2001 cannot be countenanced, for, it has already been clarified that what is impugned is the interpretation of one of the guidelines of APIIC which is a statutory body and not that of the functioning of 6th respondent. The citations relied upon by learned counsel will not improve his case. This point is answered accordingly. 20. Point No.2 Regarding this point, when the chronology of events is analysed, the APIIC Board in its 210th meeting held on 27.02.2017, no doubt approved some of the recommendations of the Committee, one of which is to enhance the term of the Managing Committees from 3 years to 5 years. The question is whether this enhancement of the term is applicable to the present Managing Committee of the 6th respondent. Admittedly, the present Managing Committee was elected on 21.04.2017 and as per the guidelines of the year 2013 issued by the 1st respondent, its term was for 3 years which would expire by 20.04.2020. However, as we observed in the point No.I infra, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 interpreted the term in two different ways. 21. Admittedly, the present Managing Committee was elected on 21.04.2017 and as per the guidelines of the year 2013 issued by the 1st respondent, its term was for 3 years which would expire by 20.04.2020. However, as we observed in the point No.I infra, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 interpreted the term in two different ways. 21. On a conspectus facts and law, it must be said, I am unable to accept the impugned interpretation dated 27.07.2020 given by the 2nd respondent. The reason is that though in the 210th Board Meeting dated 27.02.2017 it was resolved to accept the recommendations of the Committee to enhance the term of the Managing Committees from 3 years to 5 years, however, the said resolution was communicated to all IALAs by way of Inter Office Memo dated 20.04.2017 only. The relevant portion of the Inter Office Memo IOM No.APIIC/LAC/IALA Meeting/2016, dated 20.04.2017 reads thus: “The approved minutes of the 210th board meeting held on 27.02.2017 are hereby communicated to implement the same with immediate effect in APIIC IALAs. Therefore, it can be inferred that the APIIC wanted its IALAs to implement the minutes of 210th board meeting with immediate effect i.e., 20.04.2017. However, in the instant case, long before the election notification was issued on 30.03.2017 stating that the election for 6th respondent will be held on 21.04.2017. Therefore, though the minutes were communicated one day prior to election, however the election process was commenced on 30.03.2017 itself i.e., long prior to the communication of minutes to the IALAs. The election notification was issued basing on the existing guidelines of the year 2013 whereunder the term of the Managing Committees will be 3 years. It is trite law that once election process has commenced, the rules relating to election including the term of the office cannot be changed subsequently. My view is fortified by the decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 1470 = MANU/SC/0925/2008 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court deprecated the approach of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in introducing the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of written examination and interview) was completed and held that such approach would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. In this context, Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon its earlier decisions viz., P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, (1984)ILLJ 314 SC = MANU/SC/0395/1983 Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1351 = MANU/SC/0050/1985 and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, [1987] 3 SCR 1097 = MANU/SC/0627/1987. (a) Running the risk of the pleonasm, it must be said that in the instant case election notification was issued on 30.03.2017 as per the existing guidelines. Therefore, the subsequent communication of the minutes enhancing the term of the Managing Committees from 3 years to 5 years will not, in my considered view, effect the term of the 3 years of the 6th respondent. As rightly mentioned in the IOM.No.APIIC /LAC/2020, dated 18.03.2020 of the 3rd respondent, the term of the present Managing Committee would be 3 years only, however, the term of the ensuing (next) committee would be 5 years. The contrary view expressed by the 2nd respondent in his IOM No.APIIC/LAC/Vjwda/TVNMIASS/IALAJAN/2019-20 dated 27.07.2020 on the ground that election was held on 21.04.2017 i.e., subsequent to the communication of the board minutes on 20.04.2017 is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 22. In the result, this writ petition is allowed declaring that the IOM No.APIIC/LAC/Vjwda/TVNMIASS/IALA- JAN/2019-20, dt : 27.07.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent holding that the term of the Managing Committees of APIIC IALA, Service Society, Jawahar Auto Nagar, Vijayawada i.e., 6th respondent would be 5 years, is arbitrary, illegal, null and void and contrary to the guidelines of 2013 issued by the APIIC /1st respondent. It is made clear that the term of the Managing Committee of the 6th respondent which was elected on 21.04.2017 will be only 3 years, however, the term of the ensuing (next) Managing Committees will be 5 years till new guidelines are framed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.