considered the material facts and has applied the relevant judicial precedents to hold that this is not a case where the Government should have brought in the societies to be under the control of the District Collectors, the learned Advocate General points out that the State did not have the opportunity to place materials on record before the learned single Judge, and that the materials would indicate that there is no element of mala fides in exercise of executive power by the Government. He says that the term of the committees in office expired sometime in February and the impugned action was taken only months thereafter, after an initial extension was granted for a period of six (6) months. He attributes the action taken to be one relying on the report of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (for short ‘NABARD’) which is the funding agency. He also says that, ultimately, the compliance reports by the District Societies were turned down by the NABARD. This submission is disputed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners before us. We also record the submission of the learned Advocate General that when the matter was heard by the learned single Judge, the State Government advocates were not in possession of the NABARD final report to be presented before the learned single Judge.