WP/22387/2006 of Dalit Liberation Front, Vs State of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Department of on 27 December 2006

COMMON ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of therespondent-authorities in not proposing to follow the rule of reservation ascontemplated under Section 31(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative SocietiesAct,1964 (for short ‘the Act’) as amended from time to time and the Rules framedthereunder and also the Bye-laws of Cooperative Electric Supply Society Limited(CESS), Siricilla as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondentsto ensure implementation of rule of reservation as per law.

Petitioner is a society called Dalit Liberation Front represented by its PresidentMarvadi Sudhershan. According to the petitioner, the District Election Authority isproposing to hold elections to the Office bearers of the 4[th] respondent-society on 20-1-2007. However, there is no policy of reserving the seats for different categories ofweaker sections of the society as contemplated under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 22-A.(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules,1964 (for short ‘theRules’). It is the duty of the Society to follow the provisions contemplated underSection 31(1)(b) of the Act for the purpose of reserving number of seats for variouscategories.

Whereas, learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the 4[th]respondent-Society is neither aided nor its bye-laws contemplate for providing ofreservations and no notification has been issued by the Government as requiredunder Rule 22-A.(2) of the Rules. Therefore, the question of reserving any seats inthe Managing Committee of the 4[th] respondent-society for various categories doesnot arise.

It is a fact that the bye-laws of the society do not contemplate any reservationof seats in respect of various categories and no notification as required under Rule22-A.(2) of the Rules has been issued by the Government for the purpose ofreserving any seats in respect of the 4[th] respondent-society. Therefore, it cannot besaid that the respondents are not implementing the reservation as contemplatedunder Section 31(1)(b) of the Act as amended from time to time and the Rules madethereunder and also Bye-law No.9(3) of the Bye-laws of the society. In fact, bye-lawNo.9(3), even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been amendedand stood deleted. Though Section 31(1)(b) of the Act contemplates certainreservations, but they are in respect of certain societies and not to all the societies.They have been enumerated under Rule 22-A.(1) of the Rules. Whereas in respectof other societies, either it should be provided by the bye-laws or notified by theGovernment as required under Section 31(1)(b) of the Act. In this case, the bye-lawsof the 4[th] respondent-society do not contemplate for reservations nor the society isenumerated under Rule 22-A.(1) of the Rules. There is no separate notificationissued as required under Rule 22-A of the Rules. Therefore, the contention of thepetitioner that the 4[th] respondent-Society ought to have followed the rule ofreservation while conducting the elections to the office bearers cannot be accepted.The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

For the very same reasons stated in the said Writ Petition, this Writ Petition is alsoliable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. No order as to costs.

Office to furnish

CC within one week.

(B.O.)

prk

27-12-2006