THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.44O4 OF 2022
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :
"...declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No.3 in the conduct of elections to the Managing Committee of "The Auto Mobile Technician Co-operative Society", with Regd No.INDU73/97, Auto Nagar, Darsi, Prakasam District, on 26.02.2022 as illegal and void and further directing the respondents particularly respondent No.3 not to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of the said Society on 26.02.2022 or on any other date and to pass ..."
2. According to the petitioner, he is a member of the Auto Mobile Technician Co-operative Society, which was registered as INDU73-1997 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and that from inception in 1997 till today, there have been no activities by the said society in the promotion of interest and the welfare of its members and it is virtually a defunct organization. It is stated that out of 99 members, 27 members died and the remaining 72 persons are continuing as members. According to the petitioner, the Society with Regd. No.INDU73/97 is a nominal one all through, as another Association with Regd. No.405 of 1991 2 is carrying on all the activities and is serving the interests of the Society. It is stated that some members of the Association developed grouse and are creating troubles and hurdles in functioning of the Association and wanted to grab the landed property of the Associations by utilizing the name of the Society with Regd. No.INDU73/97, and are responsible for conducting elections to the already defunct Society, detrimental to the interests of the members of the Association.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 is not the authorized officer to make announcement for conduct of elections to a Co-operative Society established under Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Co- operative Societies Rules, 1964; that the District Collector is the Election Authority; that there must be a request from the office bearers of the Society to conduct elections; that voters' list must be properly scrutinized, and that bye-laws are not followed for conducting the elections.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation for respondents.
5. The petitioner moved the present Writ Petition by way of Lunch Motion on 18.02.2022 expressing urgency 3 on the ground that Notification was going to be issued. After hearing for some time, when the court asked the schedule of the election, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is not aware of the schedule. This Court perused the material. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, there is absolutely no mention as to when the schedule was fixed. The learned Government Pleader sought time and requested to post the matter to today to get instructions. Accordingly, the matter came up for hearing today.
6. Grievance of the petitioner is that there were 99 members in the subject Society and by now, 27 members expired and the remaining 72 members are continuing, and the petitioner is one among them; one Edupuganti Sathyanarayana worked as President of the said Society from 05.03.2007 and he continued till he expired on 26.10.2021, and even during the period from its inception from 1997 till date, there have been no activities by the said Society in the promotion of the interests and the welfare of its members. It is further stated that it is virtually a defunct organization. With the above grievance, the petitioner came forward with the present Writ Petition seeking stay of the issuance of the Notification for Election. 4
7. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that schedule for conducting election to the Automobile Technicians and Workers Industrial Co- operative Society Limited, INDU-73, Darsi was issued on 04.02.2022 by the District Collector and District Election Authority, Prakasam District and Sri S.Srinivas, Industrial Promotion Officer, Podili was appointed as Election Officer to conduct the elections with the assistance of the Co- operative Department Officer. The learned Government Pleader placed on record copy of the Note File approved in this regard.
8. The material placed on record by the learned Government Pleader would go to show that schedule to conduct the election to the Automobile Technicians and Workers Industrial Co-operative Society Limited, INDU-73 was fixed on 04.02.2022. According to the Election Schedule, schedules under Annexures II and III were fixed for conduct of the election by secret ballot and by show of hands. In both the Annexures, various dates were given for appointment of Election Officer; requisition by the Election Officer for production of records; preparation and publication of eligible members to vote by the CEO/by the President/PIC calling for objections; handing over of voters 5 list and records to the Election Officer by the President/ PIC, etc.
9. In the case on hand, election process schedule has already been given. The petitioner seeks a direction to 3 rd respondent not to conduct the elections on 26.02.2022. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to the following judgments:
(i) In Boddula Krishnaiah and another v. State Election Commission, A.P. and another,1 wherein it is held thus:
"Thus, it would be clear that once an election process has been set in motion, though the High Court may entertain or may have already entertained a writ petition, it would not be justified in interfering with the election process giving direction to the election officer to stall the proceedings or to conduct the election process afresh in particular when election has already been held in which the voters were allegedly prevented to exercise their franchise. As seen, that dispute is covered by an election dispute and remedy is thus available at law for redressal, Under these circumstances, we hold that the order passed by the High Court is not correct in law in giving direction not to declare the result of the election or to conduct fresh poll for 20 persons, though the writ petition is maintainable. The High Court, pending writ petition, would not be justified in issuing direction to stall the election process. It is made clear that though we have held that the respondents are not entitled to the relief by interim order, this order does not preclude any candidate 1 (2001) 8 SCC 509 6 including defeated candidate to canvass the correctness of the election. They are free as held earlier, to seek remedy by way or an election petition as provided in the Act and the Rules."
(ii) In C.Subrahmanyam v. K.Ramanjaneyulu2, wherein it is held thus:
"The impugned order was made by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed to challenge an order directing repoll made during the process of election. The first question was whether the writ petition should have been entertained in view of the remedy of election petition under the Act. The High Court took the view that the main point for decision was whether the order directing repoll is in violation of Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Having taken this view, the High Court proceeded to say that a reference was made to a provision of the Constitution in that order and, therefore, the writ petition would lie and the impugned order was quashed for violation of Section 231 of the Act.
3. In our opinion, the main question for decision being the non-compliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election petition in Rule 12 framed under the Act, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained for this purpose. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. No costs."
2 (1998) 8 SCC 703 7
(iii) In Gangarapu Ushaiah v. District Collector (Cooperation), Medak District3, wherein it is held thus:
"It is well settled that when once an election process has begun, this Court should not ordinarily interfere in the said election process."
10. Having regard to the above, this Court is not inclined to interdict the election process, which has already commenced. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to finalization of voters' list of the Society or breach of, or non-compliance with, mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 during the preparation of electoral roll, he can agitate the same after the election, before the Tribunal concerned.
11. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
____________________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J 21.02.2022 DRK 3 AIR 1992 AP 220 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.44O4 OF 2022 21.2.2022 DRK 9