Telangana High Court
WP/36445/2015 of Nalli Viswanadham, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO WRIT PETITION No.36445 of 2015 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 and Smt.B.Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for 4th respondent. 2. In this Writ Petition, the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRARAOWRIT PETITION No.36445 of 2015
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learnedGovernment Pleader for Cooperation for respondentNos.1, 2 and 5 and Smt.B.Vijaya Lakshmi, learnedcounsel for 4[th] respondent.
2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has sought a Writof Mandamus to declare the action of respondents inissuing election notification and election notice dt.26-10-2015 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14 of theConstitution of India and provisions of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 ( for short “the Act”).
3. Petitioner contends that his father was a member ofthe 4[th] respondent Society and he had expired 3 yearsprior to the filing of the Writ Petition. He contended that 4[th]respondent was obligated to prepare voters list of themembers who have paid additional share capital andsatisfied Section 25 of the Act and Rule 18 of the Rulesframed thereunder and that 4[th] respondent did not takesuch persons into account and include them in the voters list. He contended that on 14-10-2015, he submitted arepresentation to 4[th] respondent to admit new members tothe Society, but the 4[th] respondent did not take any stepsin the matter and it refused to receive even share capitalfrom the petitioner and others depriving of them anopportunity to vote in the elections.
4. It is not disputed that the election notification wasissued on 19-09-2015 appointing the 5[th] respondent as ElectionOfficer for conducting elections of 4[th] respondent Society.Election schedule was also released, pursuant to whichthe date of filing of nominations was 31-10-2015, date forwithdrawal of nomination was 02-11-2015 and the electionwas to be held on 08-11-2015.
5. Learned counsel for 4[th] respondent has stated thatsince there was only one nomination for each of the postsof the Managing Committee, the persons who filed thenominations were declared as elected on 02-11-2015itself. The present Writ Petition was filed on 07-11-2015and order was obtained on that day by the petitionerstating that “the election to the 4[th] respondent Society togo on but results shall not be finalized.”
6. But as mentioned above on 02-11-2015 much before the above order was passed, the results of theelection of the Managing Committee of 4[th] respondenthad already been declared.
7. In view of this, the only remedy open to petitioner isto question the election by raising an election disputeunder Section 61(3) of the Act.
8. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition isdismissed giving liberty to petitioner, if he is so advised, toraise a dispute under Section 61(3) of the Act. No costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any,in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAODate: 31-12-2015 Vsv/*