( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20. 3. 2001 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14920 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed. The prayer in the writ petition filed by the appellant reads thus: "to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the orders of the 4th respondent in RC. No. 1063/2000-D dated 29. 7. 2000 in refusing to appoint the existing president and the managing committee of petitioners society as a committee of persons- in-charge as per Government G. O. Ms. No. 172 dated 24. 7. 2000 issued by the 2nd respondent and appointing the 5th respondent as person-in-charge to the elakolanu PACCS Ltd. , Elakolanu, rangampeta Mdl, E. G. Dist, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and violation of the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of Act 7 of 1964 and the provisions of G. O. Ms. No. 172, dated 24. 7. 2000, and direct the respondents to continue the petitioners existing committee as committee of persons-in-charge until fresh election will be conducted. "

( 2 ) THE basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The petitioners were elected as members of the Elakolanu Patnam paccs Ltd. Their term had expired. By reason of the order impugned in the writ petition dated 29. 7. 2000, they were not appointed as persons-in-charge. The 5th respondent, by reason of the said order itself, was appointed in the said Cooperative society. It is not in dispute that prior to the impugned order, the competent authority passed an order disqualifying the appellants as members of the Managing committee under Section 21-AA of the a. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the Act ) on the allegations of having made appointments contrary to the provisions of the Act. An appeal has been filed by the appellants against the said order.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants before us, as also before the learned single Judge, adverted to a question that as the said order of disqualification stood suspended, the appellants were entitled, as a matter of course, to be appointed as persons-in- charge.

( 4 ) BEFORE answering the said question, it would be expedient to peruse the observations of the learned single Judge which read as follows: "in the analysis above, I find no error in the order impugned warranting interference in the vvrit petition. However, if the appeal preferred by the petitioners to the Cooperative tribunal under Section 76 of the Act is determined prior to the fresh elections to the Co-operative Society in question and as a result of the appellate decision, the petitioners are totally exonerated from the allegations which have led to their disqualification under Section 21-AA, then and in such a case the 4th respondent shall reconsider the issue under Section 32 (7) of the Act for appointment of all or some of them, as would appeal to him in his discretion, as persons-in-charge of the society. If any such orders appointing the petitioners or any of them are passed by the 4th respondent under Section 32 (7) of the act, it would be open to the 4th respondent to revise the earlier order appointing the 5th respondent as person-in-charge. "

( 5 ) MR. G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that having regard to the fact that the appellants herein had been elected and they, on the purported order of disqualification passed against them, have been placed under suspension, there is no reason as to why they should not be appointed as persons-in-charge. Section 32 (7) of the Act reads as follows: (a) If there is no committee or in the opinion of the Government or, the Registrar, it is not possible to call a general meeting for the purpose of conducting election of members of the commitee, the government, in respect of such class of societies as may be prescribed and the re