ORDER The Honorable Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy 1. At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No. 1483/A4/2010 dated _-4-2011 of respondent No. 1, followed by the notification dated 16-4-2011 of respondent No. 2 in relation to the elections to be held to respondent No. 3 - cooperative society. 3. The petitioners are two fishermen cooperative societies in Nellore District. They are members of the Nellore District Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited. As per the election schedule fixed for the District Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd., vide proceedings dated -4-2011 of respondent No. 1, the date of appointment of Election Officer was fixed as 2-4-2011, the date for taking over the registers of the society from the person in-charge as 6-4-2011, the date of preparation of draft eligible voters list and declaration of list by Assistant Director, Fisheries/Ex Officio Deputy Registrar, Nellore as 8-4-2011, the date of receipt of objections to the draft voters list as 11-4-2011, the date of handing over of final voters list by the Assistant Director of Fisheries/ Ex-officio Deputy Registrar, Nellore to the Election Officer as 15-4-2011 and the date of publication of election notification by the Election Officer as 16-4-2011. Further schedule for filing nominations etc., was fixed. The date of election was fixed as 23-04-2011. 4. The petitioners filed the present writ petition mainly aggrieved by the inclusion of several persons in the final voters list. According to the petitioners, proper procedure has not been followed in inviting the objections on the draft voters list as a result of which the petitioners were denied the opportunity of filing the objections. 5. this Court by order dated 21.4.2011 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the election notification. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, which are also the constituent members of the District Cooperative Society, got themselves impleaded in the writ petition. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 6. At the hearing, Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, mainly harped on the issue relating to preparation of voters list. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 6. At the hearing, Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, mainly harped on the issue relating to preparation of voters list. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Rule 22(2)(b)(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short, 'the Rules') which envisages that the Chief Executive Officer or the President of the Society shall invite claims or objections from the members within seven days of publication of the draft voters list. He has invited the attention of this Court to the election schedule which fixed 8.4.2011 as the date for publication of draft voters list, 11.4.2011 as the date for receiving the objections and 15.4.2011 as the date on which the final voters list has to be forwarded to the Election Officer. According to him, the Special Officer/Person in-charge of the Society ought to have given time till 15.4.2011 for receiving objections; after considering those objections he ought to have finalized the voters list and then forwarded to the Election Officer. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Registrar and Election Officer, it is inter alia stated that the date of publication of eligible voters list was fixed as 8.4.2011 duly allowing seven days time from the Election Notification as prescribed under Rule 22(2)(a) of the Rules and that the Special Officer/Person in-charge of the Society has published the eligible voters list on 8.4.2011 as per the election schedule and he has handed over the eligible voters list to the Election Officer on 15.4.2011. 8. There is no reference to the publication of draft voters list inviting objections by the Special Officer/Person in-charge in the counter affidavit. It is not the pleaded case of second respondent that after publication of the draft voters list, the mandatory period of seven days as envisaged under Rule 22(2)(b)(iii) was observed to enable the objectors to file their objections and that thereafter the draft voters list was finalized by the Special Officer/person in-charge before the same was transmitted to the Election Officer. In my opinion, the very election schedule itself with regard to the preparation of voters list runs counter to the above noted Rule. In my opinion, the very election schedule itself with regard to the preparation of voters list runs counter to the above noted Rule. It is quite obvious, which does not need any emphasis, that in any election, preparation of voters list is a very crucial and significant step because inclusion of ineligible persons in and exclusion of eligible persons from the voters list causes serious prejudice to the interests of members of the society and it may even change the very course of the election. Therefore, the statutory provision prescribing the period of seven days for inviting objections after due publication of the draft voters list needs to be scrupulously followed. Even though there is a gap of seven days from the date of publication of the draft voters list before the same was scheduled to be forwarded to the Election Officer, the objectors were not provided with seven days' time as the date for receipt of objections was fixed as 11.4.2011. The counter affidavit is silent as to whether any objections have been received and if so, they were considered. 9. In the light of these facts, I am of the opinion that the very election schedule fixed by the respondent No. 1 at least from the stage of publication of the draft voters list cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the election schedule and the consequential election notification from the stage of publication of the draft voters list are set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to issue a fresh schedule from the stage of preparation of draft voters list strictly in consonance with Rule 22 of the Rules within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to hold elections in accordance with the said schedule and complete the process within a period of four weeks thereafter. 10. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No. 13209 of 2011 and W.V.M.P. No. 1800 of 2011, filed by the respective parties, are disposed of as infructuous.