( 1 ) THE above group of writ petitions show the good, bad and ugly in cooperative sector of the State. The Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited (the Mill) is incorporated under the repealed Act VI of 1932 and it regulated from Feb. 24, 1964 under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1964 ). The Mill is governed by a Board of Directors who either are elected or nominated by the State Government for three years (Bye-law No. 14-A ). The power to nominate is vested in the Government for it holds 76. 16% of share capital of the Mill. Besides, three Directors in the Board, the State Government also nominate Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Mill. In one of the writ petitions filed by G. Kistanna, a member of the Mill, the nomination ordes of the Government of a named Director, Vice-Chairman and the Chairman on Sep. 4, 1979 fof three yean is challenged. In another writ petition lodged on Oct. 6, 1980, the appointment of "managing Director" by the State Government in G. O. Ms. No. 26 2/05/1980 if assailed. That affects R. Raja-sekhar who is the Manager of the Mill. The Director of Handlooms and Textiles (fee Director) on Sep. 11, 1980 while the formes petition it pending issued "a show cause notice" to the Chairman and on Oct. 6, 1980 rescinded the order in G. O. Ms. No. 941. The Directors order is challenged in a writ petition lodged on Sep. 3, 1980 by the Chairman.

( 2 ) THE nomination of Chairman is assailed to hold the Chairman could not have been nominated under Section 21-C of the Act because of the earlier terms of office held by him in two "committees" to whom the management of the Mill was entrusted. The relevant terms of the anterior "committees" of the Mill show -- (a) Between 28/10/1966 and Oct. 27, 1969 an elected committee managed the Mill. The Chairman was a member of that elected committee, (b) Between Oct. 28, 1969 and Sep. 7, 1974 following another elected committee managed the Mill. The Chairman was a member of the second committee, (c) Between Sep. 8, 1974 and Sep. 7, 1979, four persons were nominated to act persons in charge. The Chairman was not a member to the committee "appointed", (d) The Chairman is now one of the five "nominated" on Sep. 9, 1979 and the order is the subject in two writ petitions.

( 3 ) THE Director rescinded the order of nomination and held the Chairman was a member of elected committees in terms a and b and without stating anything further surmised the Chairman was not eligible to be "nominated" by the State Government under Section 21-C of the Act. The order is not self-explanatory. It is apparent the author was in search of a precedent to sustain it, so the Director rounded off the reasoning and said "similar view was also expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W. A. No. 416 of 197 3/12/1978". The learned counsel for the Director submitted this Court did not "decide" the point and the decision cited has no relevance to the facts of the case.

( 4 ) IT is averred by Kistanna, a member of the (Mill) Society that the Chairman was a member of the committee in term a, also a member in committee in term b, therefore, he could not be nominated to the committee in term d because of Section 21-C of the Act. It is argued on behalf of Mill Manager that the Chairman is "debarred" to be nominated for he was elected in the first committee a in the second committee b therefore "so long as the management of the Mill is not intervened by an elected committee the Chairman is ineligible to be nominated" for the committee in c was not an elected committee. It is argued on behalf of the State Government that the Chairman for the term in c the persons who were appointed are not a "committee" within the meaning of Section 21-C, therefore, it is elaborated that term in d is "continuation" of terms of office in a and b, in other words, term d is consecutive to the terms a and b, therefore, the Chairman is ineligible to be nominated in the impugned order.

( 5 ) T