Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 333 (AP)

Soma Venkata Rao v. Velamuri China Ayyapa Reddy

2013-04-26

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2013
Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash O.P.No.20 of 2013 pending on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Tribunal, Vijayawada (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and declare that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the said O.P. as an election dispute. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were elected as President, Vice-President and Director, respectively, of the Gurajala Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society (for short ‘the society’) in the recent elections. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, who are unsuccessful in the said elections, filed an Election Petition under Section 61(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal. The said Election Petition was entertained by the Tribunal and registered as O.P.No.20 of 2013. Questioning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the petitioners filed this Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri V.R.Machavaram, the learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the ground on which respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the Election Petition was that at the time of election of the petitioners they had three children and that thereby, they have incurred disqualification for being elected to the aforesaid society under Section 21-A (1A) of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the disqualification of the petitioners has to be determined by the General Body of the society under the Act and the Rules and that the same cannot be a subject matter of an election dispute. The learned Government Pleader for Co-Operation has opposed the above submissions and stated that since the petitioners are allegedly ineligible for being elected, such a dispute will constitute an election dispute. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 61 of the Act deals with settlement of disputes. Sub-section 3 thereof envisages that every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election to a committee of a society shall be referred for decision of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, whose decision thereon shall be final. Under Sub-section-4 thereof, such dispute shall be raised only after the date of declaration of the result of the election. Section 21-A (1A) of the Act disqualifies a person having more than two children for election or for continuing as a member of the Committee. Under Sub-section-4 thereof, such dispute shall be raised only after the date of declaration of the result of the election. Section 21-A (1A) of the Act disqualifies a person having more than two children for election or for continuing as a member of the Committee. The disqualification stipulated in this provision, thus, may occur at two stages, namely; at the stage of election of the member or after the election while continuing as a member. In the present case, the allegation against the petitioners is that by the time of their election as members to the aforesaid society, they already had three children. Therefore, it is a case pertaining to the first stage disqualification i.e., disqualification for being elected as members. As noted herein before, any dispute relating to, or in connection with the election to a committee of a society has to be decided in an Election Petition. The dispute as to whether the petitioners were eligible to be elected as members of the Managing Committee of the said society or not, thus, squarely falls within the election dispute under Section 61(3) of the Act. It is only in cases where such election disputes are not raised, or where the persons elected have incurred disqualification after their election and while continuing as members, that the procedure envisaged under Rule-24 of the Rules is required to be followed. Under this Rule, the Chief Executive Officer or the President, where there is no Chief Executive Officer, shall promptly inform the Registrar of the disqualification of the member(s), wherever such disqualification would not automatically occur, and place a report on such disqualifications in the General Body meetings for information and thereafter, the General Body has to pass a resolution declaring a person as disqualified to be a member of the committee of the society. Thus, under the Scheme of the Act and the Rules, the Tribunal has jurisdiction and competence to entertain an election dispute on the allegation that at the time of election of a candidate, he incurred disqualification under Section-21-A (1A) of the Act. The Division Bench judgment, dated 16.12.2005, of this Court in Pidugu Madhu Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Kavali and three others in Writ Appeal No.2443 of 2005 relied upon by the learned counsel is of no avail to the petitioners. The Division Bench judgment, dated 16.12.2005, of this Court in Pidugu Madhu Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Kavali and three others in Writ Appeal No.2443 of 2005 relied upon by the learned counsel is of no avail to the petitioners. That was a converse case, where the proceedings were initiated for disqualifying a member of the Managing Committee much after the elections were held. A contention was raised that such a disqualification can only be decided by way of an Election Petition. The Division Bench while repelling the said contention, referred to the second limb of Sub-section-(1A) of Section-21-A of the Act and held that as a person having more than two children is rendered disqualified even for continuance as a member of the committee after election, such a dispute need not necessarily be decided only by way of an Election Petition. This judgment, far from supporting the petitioners’ case, fortifies the view of this Court that two different mechanisms have been provided for deciding on the disqualification of a member depending upon the stage at which the dispute is raised. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is wholly meritless and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMPs, if any, pending are dismissed as infructuous.