Telangana High Court

WP/27559/2007 of Karna Krupa Rao, Vs The Commisioner of Fisheries and Ex.Officio Registrar of on 26 December 2007

Cites 1, Cited by 0

SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 27559 of 2007 Oral order: Questioning the action of respondent No.3 in publishing the voters list of respondent No.4-Society, without including the names of petitioner Nos.1 to 9, and proceeding to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

1

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…

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAW.P. No.27559 of 2007

Oral order:

Questioning the action of respondent No.3 in publishing thevoters list of respondent No.4-Society, without including the names ofpetitioner Nos.1 to 9, and proceeding to conduct elections to theManaging Committee of respondent No.4-Society on 28.12.2007based on the said voters list, the petitioners filed the present writpetition.

The petitioners state that they are members of respondent No.4-Society. The case of the petitioners is that on 29.03.2007, elections tothe Managing Committee of respondent No.4-Society were conducted,and in the voters list prepared for the purpose of the said election, thenames of petitioner Nos.1 to 9 are found, while the names of petitionerNos. 10 to 23, who are also members of the society, are not found. However, respondent No.1, without approving the new ManagingCommittee of the said society, has issued proceedings dated07.05.2007, appointing respondent No.3 as Person-in-Charge of thesaid society to manage the affairs of the society for a period of sixmonths.

Aggrieved by the said order, the newly elected President of theSociety has filed W.P. No. 14683 of 2007, which was disposed of byorder of this Court dated 12.07.2007 directing respondent No.1 toreceive the representation of the Society and pass appropriate ordersthereon. Pursuant to the said orders, respondentNo.1 passed ordersdated 19.11.2007, directing respondent No.2 to initiate necessaryaction for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.4-Society.

Now the grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant theretorespondent No.3, without including the names of the petitioners, whoare active members, and without calling for any objections, if any, hasprepared and published the voters list of 125 members excluding theirnames and including the names of dead person, and basing on sucherroneous voters list, also issued election notification and isproceeding to conduct elections on 28.12.2007, and if respondentNo.3 is allowed to conduct elections basing on such erroneous voterslist, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, thepetitioners seek a direction to the respondents to permit them toparticipate in the elections scheduled to be held on 28.12.2007 to theManaging Committee of respondent No.4-Society.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Co-operation for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

The elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.4-Society, in terms of Rule 22(1)(a) of the A.P. Co-operative SocietiesRules, 1964 are scheduled to be held on 28.12.2007. It is the case ofthe petitioners that the respondents without considering the objectionsfiled by the petitioners, published the final voters list, in which theirnames are not found, and on the basis of such erroneous voters list,the respondents are proceeding to conduct the elections. Thepetitioners state that if the respondents are allowed to conductelections with such erroneous voters list, they will be put to irreparableloss and hardship.

The writ petition raises disputed questions of fact, namelywhether the petitioners are members of respondent No.4-society, and ifso, whether they are entitled to exercise their voting rights for electingthe Managing Committee, and whether the respondents before publishing the final voters list called for objections, and if so whetherthe petitioners submitted their objections, and whether such objectionswere considered by the respondents. Such disputed questions of fact,the law is well settled, cannot be gone into by this Court in a writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Since the dispute raised by the petitioners relates to conduct ofelections to respondent No.4-Society based on the final voters listpublished, which the petitioners contend is erroneous and, in fact, wasprepared without calling for objections and without considering theirobjections, having regard to the provisions of Section 61(3) of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, which states that every disputerelating to, or in connection with any election to a committee of asociety shall be referred for decision to the Tribunal having jurisdictionover the place where the main office of the society is situated, whosedecision shall be final, I am of the considered opinion that the saidquestion cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ petition, and theremedy of the petitioner, is to approach the Tribunal.

In fact this Court in M. Ramachandra Reddy and Others v.

Government of A.P.[[1]]considered similar question as is involved inthis writ petition, and held that even if it was assumed that there werecertain irregularities in enrolment of the members of the society andpreparation of the voters list as alleged by respondents 4 to 7, as heldby the apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (MoingiriMaharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State ofMaharashtra[[2]], the same can at the most be a valid ground to raisean election dispute after the declaration of the result, and that sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61 of the Act in clear terms provide thatany dispute relating to any election to a committee of a society shall bereferred to the Tribunal only after the date of declaration of the result of such election.

Since in the instant case, elections to the society are yet to beheld, the petitioner, after declaration of the result of the elections, is atliberty to approach the Tribunal under Section 61(4) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 raising the dispute relating to or inconnection with election, referred to under sub-section (3) thereof.

For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, andthe same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are atliberty to approach the Co-operative Tribunal under Sections 61(3) and (4) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, afterconduct of the elections and raise election dispute. No costs.

Dated: 26[th] December, 2007.KSR

_________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.

[1]2006 (2) ALD 2962006 (2) ALD 296

[2](2001) 8 SCC 509(2001) 8 SCC 509

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead