JUDGMENT : PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 21889 of 2021 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, the present writ appeal has been preferred. By the order under challenge, the learned single Judge declined to quash the proceedings issued by respondent No. 4-Assistant Director of Fisheries, Visakhapatnam, dated 14.09.2021, under which the elections conducted to the petitioner-society were declared as invalid as per Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 22(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’). 2. The petitioner preferred the writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 14.09.2021 issued by respondent No. 4, under which the elections conducted to the petitioner-society were declared as invalid on the ground that the petitioner-society conducted elections of its own and as per Section 43 of the Act and Rule 22(B) of the Rules, if the society obtained financial aid from the state Government or from the Government organizations, the Government has to conduct elections to the petitioner-society, and that the petitioner- society has taken small boats and fishing nets worth Rs. 3,24,108/- from AFCOF at 25% subsidy and therefore, the society cannot conduct elections of its own. It is urged before the learned single Judge that that the petitioner-society is a small society consisting of 89 members and it has not received any financial aid from the State and therefore, the incumbent managing committee themselves conducted elections. But the respondents have illegally declared the elections as invalid. 3. The petitioner also challenged the election schedule issued by respondent No. 5, dated 21.09.2021 to conduct elections to respondent No. 6, contending that the petitioner-society is affiliated to respondent No. 6-society and it has voting right, however, on account of the proceedings dated 14.09.2021, it is disqualified from participating in the election and it is deprived of voting right. 4. Further, it is argued before the learned single Judge that the petitioner-society has not received any financial aid from the State except the above subsidy that too in the year 1992-93 and therefore, the elections conducted by the petitioner-society cannot be invalidated and the society cannot be disqualified from participating in the elections to be conducted to respondent No. 6-society. 5. 5. The learned single Judge has referred to the law down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Ch. Srinivasa Rao and Another vs. District Collector/Election, 2007 (3) ALD 197 , wherein it is held as follows: “Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Rules 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) envisaged the whole process of conducting elections to all classes of cooperative societies in the State. The procedure envisaged therein includes various steps such as appointment of Election Officer, publication of list of members eligible to vote, inviting claims or objections from the members to the draft voters list, communication of the final voters list to the Election Officer by the Chief Executive Officer or President of the Society, issuance of election notice by the Election Officer, fixing the election programme, holding of elections and declaration of result etc. Rule 22 of the Rules is therefore a complete code in itself. It is held in a large number of decisions that every step envisaged in Rule 22 of the Rules forms part of the election process and any dispute relating to any of these steps constitutes a dispute relating to or in connection with an election within the meaning of Section 61(3) of the Act.” Referring to the above judgment, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the relief sought for by the petitioner could not be granted because the validity or otherwise of the final voters’ list cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as disputed questions of fact, which require enquiry, are involved, and that when the entire process of election except voting is concluded, this Court cannot issue any writ. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that the learned single Judge has passed the order adjudicating on the second part of the prayer made in the writ petition without recording any finding on the main prayer made in the writ petition i.e. about the proceedings dated 14.09.2021 wherein the election conducted by the petitioner-society was declared as invalid. Reiterating his submissions, it is contended that one time receipt of financial aid in the year 1992-93, more particularly, when similar aid was provided to all the societies, would not fall within the meaning of State aid under Section 43 of the Act. Reiterating his submissions, it is contended that one time receipt of financial aid in the year 1992-93, more particularly, when similar aid was provided to all the societies, would not fall within the meaning of State aid under Section 43 of the Act. According to him, the final audit report for the year 2018-2019 clearly mentions the petitioner-society as unaided society and more over, all these years the petitioner-society conducted elections of its own and there was no interference by the officers of the Department. 7. Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 would draw our attention to the documents filed along with the counter-affidavit and contend that the petitioner-society accepted the conduct of elections by the State authorities in the year 2016. He would submit that if the petitioner is an unaided society, there should have been an objection at the time of elections conducted by the State authorities in the year 2016. It is also urged that once the petitioner admits that financial aid was received by the society in the year 1992-93, it is within the realm of Section 43 of the Act and therefore, the elections that were conducted to the petitioner-society were declared as invalid. 8. The main issue for determination is whether the petitioner can be treated to have received State aid and it would be covered within State aid societies merely on the basis that it has taken small boats and fishing nets of Rs. 3,24,108/- from AFCOF at 25% subsidy in the year 1992-93. 9. It is pertinent to note that Rule 22 of the Rules provides that notwithstanding anything in the bye-law of the societies election to the committee of all classes of societies shall be in the manner laid down in this rule. Rule 22(1)(a) envisages that the incumbent Managing Committee shall themselves conduct and hold elections to societies which are not in receipt of State aid as specified under Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 as per the procedures laid down in their bye-laws well before the expiry of the term of the existing Managing Committees. It is, thus, clear that when the society is not in receipt of the State aid, it has to conduct elections of its own. It is, thus, clear that when the society is not in receipt of the State aid, it has to conduct elections of its own. But if it has received the State aid as specified under Section 43 of the Act, the election shall be conducted in the manner set forth under Rule 22(1)(b) of the Rules. 10. Section 43 of the Act speaks about State aid to the societies. The same is reproduced hereunder: 43. State aid to Societies: The Government may, subject to the rules: (a) give loans or advance moneys to a society. (b) subscribe to the share capital of a society. (c) provide moneys to a society: (i) for the purchase of shares of other societies. (ii) to enable it to provide moneys to another society to purchase shares in other societies. (d) guarantee the repayment of principal and payment of interest on debentures issued by a society. (e) guarantee the repayment of share capital of a society and dividends thereon at such rates as may be specified by the Government. (f) guarantee the repayment of principal and payment of interest on loans and advance of moneys to a society. (g) guarantee the repayment of deposits received by a society and payment of interest on such deposits subject to such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the Government. (h) give financial aid in any other form including subsidies to any society. 11. Plain reading of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act would mean that obtaining of loan or receipt of advance money from the State shall amount to State aid. Any financial aid in any other form including subsidies to any society is also covered within the term ‘State aid’ as mentioned in Section 43 (h) of the Act. The provision does not clarify as to whether one time grant of State aid by way of subsidy would not amount to State aid or whether the State aid has to be continuous and regular for being covered by any of the clauses of Section 43 of the Act. 12. The provision does not clarify as to whether one time grant of State aid by way of subsidy would not amount to State aid or whether the State aid has to be continuous and regular for being covered by any of the clauses of Section 43 of the Act. 12. On a conjoint reading of Section 43 of the Act and Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules and in the absence of any clear indication that the State aid has to be continuous and regular, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that one time aid by way of subsidy to any society would not be covered within the term State aid, cannot be accepted, and the declaration of invalidity made by respondent No. 4 about the elections conducted by the petitioner-society on its own, cannot be faulted with. 13. The writ appeal has no substance. However, considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that imposition of costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioner by the learned single Judge appears to be unreasonable. Therefore, we set aside the order of the learned single Judge insofar as imposition of costs of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned. 14. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed on merits. No costs. All pending miscellaneous applications shall stand dismissed.