ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to permit him to exercise voting right in ensuing elections to be held on 07.12.2020 to the 4th respondent by suspending the impugned endorsement made in the preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020 and final voters list dated 23.11.2020, which were made without considering the objections of the petitioner dated 10.11.2020. 2. Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries representing on behalf of respondents 2 and 5 and Sri B. Soma Sekhar, learned counsel representing on behalf of 6th respondent. 3. The main plank of argument of learned counsel for petitioner is that without following the due procedure contemplated under Section 21(3) of A.P. Cooperative Credit Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and without passing a speaking order, the petitioner's name is deleted from the membership and also from the voters list by making a mere endorsement in the preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020 and final voters list dated 23.11.2020, which is unjust and illegal. 4. In expatiation, learned counsel would submit that as against the publication of preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020, the petitioner submitted his objections dated 10.11.2020 to the 3 respondent and also submitted copies to respondents 2 and 5. His grievance is that without conducting the due enquiry and affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as laid down in the proviso to Section 21(3) of the Act, the 6 respondent simply made an endorsement in the preliminary voters list and final voters list to the effect that certain voters including the petitioner were admitted in contravention of G.O. Ms. No. 74, dated 21.10.2011. He, thus prayed to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries would submit that the preliminary voters list was published on 04.11.2020 calling for the objections and the petitioner without submitting his objections to the Election Officer, i.e., 6 respondent herein, submitted his objections to the 3 respondent, who has nothing to do with the preparation of voters list and hence, a final voters list was prepared on 23.11.2020 and certain bogus voters were deleted from the list as their inclusion was contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 74, dated 21.10.2011. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to seek his remedy before the concerned Tribunal, but not before this Court. No. 74, dated 21.10.2011. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to seek his remedy before the concerned Tribunal, but not before this Court. Learned counsel for 6th respondent also submitted his arguments in similar lines and prayed to dismiss the petition. 6. Section 21 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 deals with 'disqualification for membership of the society'. Proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 21 reads thus: "(3) Where any person, who is not eligible for being admitted as member has been admitted as member or where a member who is disqualified to continue as such under sub-section (1) continued as member he shall be removed- (i) by the Registrar on his own motion or on a representation made to him by any member of the society or its federal society or financing bank; or (ii) by the Committee of the society; Provided that no member shall be removed under this subsection unless he had an opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action and where the removal is sought to be made by the Committee, until the resolution of the committee is approved by the Registrar. The order of the Registrar, or as the case may be, a copy of the resolution removing the member as approved by the Registrar, shall be communicated to such person and on such communication he shall be deemed to have ceased to be member of the society." 7. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted his objections against the preparation of the preliminary voters list dated 04.11.2020 on 10.11.2020. I Copy of the said objections shows that the same was addressed to the 3rd respondent and copies were marked to the respondents 2 and 5. Then, a perusal of the copies of the preliminary and final voters list, which are filed along with the material papers in the writ petition, would show that an endorsement was made in Telugu against the voters, who were deleted from the list to the effect that contrary to the conditions in G.O. Ms. No. 74, dated 21.10.2011 and without the permission of Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), those voters were registered and hence, deleted. 8. No. 74, dated 21.10.2011 and without the permission of Ex-Officio Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Fisheries), those voters were registered and hence, deleted. 8. The contention of the petitioner as stated supra is that after submission of written objections no personal hearing was afforded and no reasoned order was passed except making a cryptic observation in the preliminary and final voters list and hence, principles of natural justice is not followed. This aspect needs an elaborate hearing from both sides to decide the writ petition. However, having regard to the fact that the election is proposed to be conducted at 03.00 pm today i.e., on 07.12.2020, the interest of justice requires that the petitioner shall be permitted by the respondents to caste his vote. Accordingly, the respondents, particularly the 6 respondent shall permit the petitioner to caste his vote in the ensuing election to the 4th respondent society to be held at 03.00 pm today and the vote caste by the petitioner shall be kept in a sealed cover and the same shall be preserved by the 2nd respondent, who is the election authority, until further orders of the Court. However, the declaration of results can be proceeded without counting the vote of the petitioner, if the vote of the petitioner is not a decider. However, if such eventuality occurs, the respondent authorities shall seek for further directions of this Court.