Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
B.Venkateswarlu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 October, 2019
Author: T. Rajani
Bench: T. Rajani
1
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI
WRIT PETITION No.16981 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 5th respondent in issuing proceedings No.1/2019, dated 22.10.2019, rejecting the objections of the petitioners, dated 21.10.2019 and 22.10.2019 and preparing a final voter list dated 25.10.2019 in relation to the 6th respondent-Society without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 22(2)(vi) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri C.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the Government Pleader for Cooperatives appearing for respondents 1 to 5. Notice to the 6th respondent is dispensed with as the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the voters' list prepared by the 5th respondent, objections were called for and the same were submitted by the petitioners. The Election Officer has considered the objections and deleted the names of certain voters. His contention is that as per Rule 22(2)(b)(vi) of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, after receipt of the final list of members eligible to vote from the Society, the Election Officer shall verify the cases and satisfy himself that the list conforms to the criteria for eligibility to vote as laid down under the Act and Rules. If there are any omissions or commissions noticed while scrutinizing the list, 2 the Election Officer shall refer the same to the Chief Executive Officer or the President of the Society for rectification. After such rectification, the Election Officer shall publish the final list of the voters along with the Schedule as prescribed in Form I.
4. As can be understood from a reading of the above provision, if the Election Officer finds that the final list does not conform to the criteria to the eligibility for vote, he has to send the same to the Chief Executive Officer, who has to take a decision for deletion of the names, which are not found as conforming to the criteria of eligibility. If the Election Officer receives the said list from the Chief Executive Officer after rectification, the Election Officer shall publish the same. In this case, the Election Officer himself has taken over the work of deleting the names of the candidates including the petitioners from the list without sending the same to the Chief Executive Officer as mandated.
5. With regard to the contention raised by the Government Pleader, about the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that Section 61(3) of the AP Cooperative Societies Act, provides that the dispute relating to the Society shall be referred for decision to the Tribunal having jurisdiction, the counsel relies on the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh reported in Vattikala Naga Bhaskar Rao vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh passed in W.P.Nos.6837, 8373 & 18714 of 2018, wherein it was held as follows:
3
"It is no doubt true that all disputes relating to elections to a Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society shall be determined only by an authority competent to do so and such disputes could be raised only after the result of the election is declared and the election process should not be generally interrupted on the parties aggrieved raising any disputes even before the elections are held. However, it is also settled law that when the illegality or irregularity is very serious and fundamental, election process could be interrupted in deserving cases. This view of this Court is reinforced by the decision in R.VENUGOPAL VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS1. Under similar circumstances, this Court in the decision in TADEM SATISH & OTHERS V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NALGONDA DISTRICT2 having found that the Election Officer committed a clear infraction of the mandate contained in Rule 22 (II)(vi) of the Rules and that the difference of number of voters in the two voters' lists being phenomenal and as the number of voters is slashed down from 930 to 379 held that the said case is a fit case warranting interference and accordingly held that the voters' list published by the 2nd respondent therein shall not be treated as final and directed him to follow the mandate of the Rule and thereafter publish the voters' lists and the fresh election programme. Accordingly this Court disposed of the said writ petition. Therefore, the contention that election process could not be interrupted under any circumstances, including in cases where the illegality and/or irregularity is very serious and fundamental cannot be countenanced."
6. Hence, the maintainability of the writ petition before this court can be upheld. In the said judgment, the High Court of Telangana observed that on the ground that Rule 22(2)(vi) is violated, the omission warrants interference and the writ petitions deserves to be allowed.
7. Hence, going by the similarity of the facts and the issues involved in the case dealt with by the Telangana High Court in the 1 1988(2) ALT 211 (DB) 2 2007(4) ALD 328 4 above said writ petitions and this writ petition, this court deems it fit to direct the 5th respondent-Election Officer to forward the list to the 6th respondent-Society and after the 6th respondent-Society rectifies the electoral list, then the 5th respondent shall act upon the said list and publish the same and thereafter proceed with the election work.
8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings No.1/2019, dated 22.10.2019, issued by the 5th respondent.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ JUSTICE T. RAJANI October 30, 2019 Note:
Furnish copy tomorrow.
{B/o} LMV 5 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T. RAJANI WRIT PETITION No.16981 of 2019 October 30, 2019 LMV