Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

This Writ Petition Is Filed Under ... vs The on 13 July, 2023

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                      WRIT PETITION No.35901 OF 2022

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, claiming the following relief:

"To declare the action of the 1st respondent in passing the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.280 dated 29.10.2022 postponing the election to the Managing Committee of the Anigndlapadu Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited Regd. No.DD2326 Anigandlapadu Village, Penuganchiprolu Mandal, NTR District and consequential Notice dated 30.10.2022 of the 3rd Respondent to that effect as the same is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and being contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Society Act and A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of the above said society from the stage where it was stopped by setting aside the impugned order

2. The petitioner's case can be summarized as follows: The

petitioner is a member of the 4th Respondent/Society and currently

serves as the President of the incumbent Managing Committee. The

term of the current Election Committee is set to expire on 14.11.2022.

Subsequently, the 3rd Respondent/Election Officer was appointed to

oversee the election process for the 4th Respondent/Society. However,

on 21.10.2022, the 3rd Respondent/Election Officer issued a

notification to conduct elections for the 4th Respondent/Society.

3. According to the Election Notification, 27.10.2022 is the last

date for receiving nominations, 29.10.2022 is the date for scrutinizing NV,J

the nominations, 30.10.2022 is the last day for withdrawing

nominations, and 06.11.2022 is the scheduled date for polling,

counting of votes and announcement of results.

4. Pursuant to the said Notification, nominations were submitted

on 27.10.2022, and the scrutiny of nominations took place on

29.10.2022. While things stood thus, to the utter surprise of the

villagers and members of the 4th Respondent/Society, the

1st Respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.280 Animal Husbandry, Dairy

Development & Fisheries (Dy. & Vig.) Department dated 29.10.2022,

postponing the elections to the Managing Committee of the

4th Respondent/Society until further orders. Assailing the same, the

present writ petition is preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

G.O.Rt No.280 dated 29.10.2022 is contrary to the object of Rule 22-C

of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short

'Rules', 1964'), under which the present impugned proceedings were

issued. He further submits that Rule 22-C of the Rules, 1964 provides

the Government or the Election Authority with the authority to

postpone elections under certain specified circumstances. However, it

is his contention that the present Government Order appears to have

been issued with a political motive and without providing any valid NV,J

reasons for the postponement of the elections. Learned counsel placed

reliance on the judgments of this Court in M.A. Sami Khan vs. The

District Collector, Hyderabad1 and M. Ramachandra Reddy and

others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh2 and in support of the

ratio laid down by this Court in the above judgments, learned counsel

requests to set-aside the impugned G.O and re-commence the process

of elections from the stage at which it was obstructed or interrupted as

per Rule 22-C(b) of the Rules, 1964.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader argues that the

elections were postponed due to the presence of invalid voters listed in

the voters' list and exclusion of eligible voters from the list. Learned

counsel would submit that, it is impossible to conduct an election

without ensuring the presence of valid voters, as such, the impugned

G.O.Rt cannot be interfered.

7. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents/Respondent

Nos.5 & 6 reiterated the contentions urged by the learned Government

Pleader and also submitted that since the voters list of the

4th Respondent/Society is not proper, some ineligible voters have been

included and eligible voters were excluded/deleted, therefore, having

1992 (1) ALT 611 (D.B)

2006 (1) APLJ 345 NV,J

no other option and elections to be conducted fair and reasonably, the

1st Respondent postponed the elections till finalization of the voters

list.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government

Pleader and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents.

9. On perusal of the material available on record, the impugned

G.O.Rt.No.280 dated 29.10.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent is

against the object of Rule 22-C of the Rules, 1964. For better

appreciation of the case, Rule 22-C is extracted hereunder:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government or the Election authority may direct the postponement of elections under one or more of the following circumstances:--

(i) Break down of law and order affecting the peaceful and lawful conduct of elections.

(ii) Any natural calamity that prevents the conduct of elections particularly, voters from participation in the election.

(iii) Where there is reasonable apprehension that voters will not be allowed to vote frankly and freely.

(2) The postponement shall be done only by issue of an order which shall specify the grounds of postponement. After such postponement the election process shall be recommenced when the conditions become conducive for re- commencing of election, by issue of an order by the Authority that has postponed the elections. The process will re-commence from the stage at which it was obstructed or interrupted.

10. From the above, it is evident that, the Government or the

Election Authority can postpone the elections in the case of break

down of law and order or due to any natural calamity or where there is NV,J

reasonable apprehension that the genuine voters will not may not be

allowed to franchise their votes. In the case on hand, obviously, the

postponement of elections was not on any of the grounds mentioned

under Rule 22-C of the Rules, 1964. The impugned G.O.Rt.No.280

dated 29.10.2022 does not speak about any of the ingredients that are

enumerated in Rule 22-C for postponement of elections. Moreover, the

impugned G.O appears to have been issued at the behest of the local

representative, in the guise of the alleged faults found in the voters list

for conducting elections is unsustainable. It is settled principle of law

that, once Election Notification is issued, it cannot be postponed or it

cannot be interfered or interrupted for any other reason, except as

established by law.

11. Once an election process is set in motion, Courts would not

interfere, stall or stultify the same. election process once commenced

must be permitted to run its logical course till the end. If Courts

interfere in the midst of an election process and litigation being what it

is, no election will ever be expeditiously completed. It is best, therefore,

that the process once set in motion is not interrupted. It is best left

undisturbed and allowed to be completed. One aggrieved by the result

of the election or by any one or the other aspect relating thereto has,

as earlier indicated, his remedy open by way of an election dispute.

(vide M.A. Sami Khan vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad and NV,J

M. Ramachandra Reddy and others vs. Government of Andhra

Pradesh (referred surpa))

12. In the instant case on hand, the impugned G.O was issued

against the object of Rule 22-C and whatever the discrepancies which

were reported by the authorities concerned regarding list of voters, it

should be verified and finalized before the elections. Once the voters

list is finalized and election notification is issued, the election process

cannot be interfered or interrupted.

13. Further, Section 61 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

Act, 1964, deals with disputes which may be referred to the Registrar.

For better appreciation of the case, Sub-sections (3) & (4) are extracted

hereunder:

"(3) Every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election to a committee of a society shall be referred for decision to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, whose decision thereon shall be final.

(4) Every dispute relating to, or in connection with any election [shall be referred under] sub-section (3) only after the date of declaration of the result of such election.''

14. On perusal of Sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 61 of the Act,

1964, it is clear that if a dispute arising out of the election with regard

to illegal exclusion or inclusion of a voter therein, Section 61(3) of the NV,J

Act provides for remedy for all such disputes before the appropriate

Tribunal and as per the mandate of Sub-section (4) therefore, such

dispute will be entertained only after declaration fo result of the

election. In other words, interdiction of the election process on account

of any such dispute is not permissible in view of the object, purpose

and scheme under Section 61 of the Act, more particularly sub-

sections 3 & 4 thereof.

15. When representations are made to the Government regarding

potential law and order issues or disturbances that may arise if the

elections are conducted as scheduled, it is the Government's

responsibility to investigate and gather information from the District

Level Law Enforcing Agency or local police to verify the validity of such

allegations before deciding to postpone the elections. In this case, none

of the election officers reported any law and order problems associated

with conducting the elections. Additionally, no efforts were made to

ascertain the truth or falsehood of the allegations. Therefore, this

Court is of the view that the orders of the Government impugned are

wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

16. In view of my foregoing reasons, the writ petition is liable to be

allowed, setting-aside G.O.Rt.No.280 dated 29.10.2022, while directing NV,J

the respondents shall re-commence the process of elections from the

stage at which it was obstructed or interrupted.

17. In the result, writ petition is allowed with the following

directions:

a. The action of 1st Respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.280 dated 29.10.2022 is declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964;

b. G.O.Rt.No.280 Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries (Dy. & Vig.) Department dated 29.10.2022 is set- aside;

c. The 3rd Respondent/Election Officer is directed to re-

commence the process of elections from the stage at which it was obstructed or interrupted as per Rule 22-C(b) of the Rules, 1964, duly intimating about the date of election to all the members of the Society in advance.