( 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. 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 e