Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Papireddy Venkateswara Reddy vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 February, 2022

 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

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

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.

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

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

(2001) 8 SCC 509

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."

(1998) 8 SCC 703

(iii) In Gangarapu Ushaiah v. District Collector

(Cooperation), Medak District3, wherein it is held thus: