Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kankanala Rajanikanth ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.22603 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No DATE ORDER Office Note
27.07.2022 RRR, J
The petitioners are members of Tirupati
Cooperative Bank Limited, which is a cooperative
society registered under the A.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1964. The petitioners had stood as
candidates in the election to the Board of Directors
of the said Cooperative Society, held on 20.07.2022.
The respondents 12 to 23 have been declared as
elected to the Board.
The petitioners have approached this Court by
way of the present writ petition, being aggrieved by
the manner in which the elections are said to have
been conducted and the action of the State
machinery, which is said to have gone out of its way
to assist other candidates, including respondents 12
to 23, who had stood for election.
It is the contention of the petitioners that the
petitioners and the persons supporting them were
not permitted to stay near the place where the
voting was being conducted and that quite a few of
their supporters had been detained without any valid
reason and thereby respondents 12 to 23, who have
now been declared to be elected as directors of the
said bank, could freely carry on rigging of votes.
Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Sri G. Subba Rao, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire
exercise was resulted in a total breakdown of the
faith of the common man in the process of elections
and requires the extraordinary remedy under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to be invoked. He
further submits that as a preliminary step for
verification of facts, it would be appropriate to direct
the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to conduct an
enquiry to ascertain the facts.
The learned Senior Counsel relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali v. B.D. Jatti1
(paragraph 21) and a judgment of the Hon'ble High
Court of Gujarat dated 27.09.2021 in Civil
Application No.17941 of 2021 in the case of Vasamt
Bhai Vadilal Joshi vs. Laxmikuvar
Virendrasingh Parmar to contend that in
situations of total breakdown of the system, this
Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, would be entitled to
interfere.
The learned Additional Advocate General
appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 11 would
take a preliminary objection that the present writ
petition is not maintainable. He contends that
Section 61(3) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act,
1964 provides for an adequate effective alternative
remedy of filing of election petition by the
petitioners. He would further rely upon the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Laxmibai vs. Collector, Nanded and Ors.,2
(paragraph 43) and a judgment of a Division Bench
of the erstwhile High Court of A.P. reported in
M.A.R.V.S. Sai Baba and Ors., vs.
Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Government of A.P., Hyderabad and
Ors.,3 (paragraph 8).
The learned Additional Advocate General
would also refute the statements of fact set out in
the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He
(1970) 3 SCC 147
(2020) (12) SCC 186
1999 (2) ALT 233 (D.B)
submits that the entire case is built upon media
reports and the same cannot be a firm basis for any
action to be taken by this Court.
The primary question that remains in this
matter is whether there was a total breakdown of
the system in the course of the election or whether
there were disputes between the contestants, which
can be decided by way of an election petition.
The invocation of a remedy under Article 226
of the Constitution of India in the face of an
effective alternative remedy, under Section 60(2)
(iii) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964,
would have to be only in extraordinary situations.
In the present case, the version of the
petitioners may require such an intervention.
However, as the respondents, represented by the
learned Additional Advocate General, deny these
allegations, it would be appropriate that a counter to
be filed by the respondents setting out their version
of the facts and answering the allegations made by
the petitioners in the present writ petition.
Therefore, the respondents shall file a counter
within a period of four weeks.
This order shall not preclude the petitioners
from availing of their statutory remedies as the time
frame for availing such remedies may require the
petitions to be filed in time, failing which the remedy
itself would stand barred.
Post on 24.08.2022.
_________
RRR, J
Js
