Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 844 (AP)

Ambati Rambabu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2024-07-26

TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

body2024
ORDER : (Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.) : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Order of 5th Respondent proceedings vide Rc No 12/2023 dt 6 2 2023 and illegal and improper election process vide Proc No 09/B/2022 Dated 18 1 2023 is without considering mandatory objections raised by the petitioner and trying to conduct elections to 6th Respondent Society with improper and illegal voter list without rectifying the anomalies in voter list which is highly illegal arbitrary pervasive irrational and without any authority and unconstitutional and contrary to AP Co Operative Societies Act 1964 and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently set aside the above impugned order and direct the Respondent to conduct the elections to 6th Respondent society after rectifying the anomalies in voter list and to pass such...” 2. The main plea on which this Writ Petition is filed is that the 6th respondent provided a voter's list that included 191 members who were not present at the general body meeting. As seen from records, minute book and admission register of the Marine Fisherman Co-operative Society Budgatlapaem Village of Etcherla Mandalam it only contains 161 members. The 6th respondent has added 29 new voters who are not members to their list, as shown and the 6th respondent is conducting elections without rectifying the voter’s list in spite of appeals made to the Deputy Director of Fisheries to remove the 29 new members to the society. 3. The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Srikakulam, vide proceedings in Rc.No.09/B/2022 dated 28.01.2023 addressed a letter to the petitioner herein, opining that there is no irregularity in the issue and also suggested to file written objections if any on the preliminary voters published by Person in charge (PIC) of the society with documentary evidences between 28.01.2023 to 04.02.2023. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed another representation to the person in charge, MFCS, Budagatlapalem, Etcherla Mandal on 02.02.2023, by giving all the particulars. Wherein, the person in charge passed an order dated 06.02.2023 without considering the representation made by the petitioner as directed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Srikakulam. 5. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner filed another representation to the person in charge, MFCS, Budagatlapalem, Etcherla Mandal on 02.02.2023, by giving all the particulars. Wherein, the person in charge passed an order dated 06.02.2023 without considering the representation made by the petitioner as directed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Srikakulam. 5. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to direct the 5th respondent to conduct election after considering the representation of the petitioner as per the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies, Act, 1964. 6. The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit by asserting that after publication of preliminary voters list consisting of 639 members, the petitioner had filed objections on 04.02.2023 in respect of 60 member/voters without valid document evidences (Ex-XII), specifying seaman (17), other community (02), above 65 years (26), students (07) and double entry (08). Though, there is no documentary evidences for his objections, the person in charge had scrutinized the voters list, and deleted 10 ineligible voters from the list i.e., double entries (07), other community (02), employee (01) and finalized the list as 629 members (Ex-XIII) and handed over the same to the election officer on 07.02.2023. The final list of members had also been supplied to the petitioner on requisition. 7. The petitioner also contended that the election officer is trying to conduct elections with improper voters list without rectifying anomalies in voters list is not correct, as all the norms of the Act had been adhered, hence it is not illegal, and there is no need to conduct elections. The 2nd respondent approved the election schedule by re-notifying the date of election as 17.02.2023 in terms of the order of this Court dated 24.11.2022 in W.P.No.35837 of 2022. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the impugned order dated 06.02.2023 is passed without considering the petitioner’s representation dated 02.02.2023 and hence, the 5th respondent may be directed to conduct the elections after considering the petitioner’s representation dated 02.02.2023, in accordance with law. 9. Rule 22 of AP Co-operative Society rules, 1964 contemplates the procedure for conducting elections to the society Clause (vi) envisages that: “After receipt of the final list of members eligible to vote from the society, the Election Officer shall verify the cases and satisfy himself that the list conforms to the criteria for eligibility to vote as laid down under the Act and Rules. [If there are no omissions or commissions noticed while scrutinizing the final list, the Election Officer shall refer the same to the Chief Executive Officer or President of the Society for rectification. After such rectification, the Election Officer shall publish the final list of the voters along with the election schedule as prescribed in Form-I.”] 10. Under Rule 22(2)(b)(iii) of the Rules, the Chief Executive Officer or President of the society shall invite the claims or objections from the members. Under sub-rule (ii) thereof, the Chief Executive Officer or President of the society shall communicate the final list of members eligible to vote to the Election Officer on the date specified by the Election authority and under sub- rule (vi) thereof, after receipt of the final list of members eligible to vote from the society, the Election Officer shall verify the cases and satisfy himself that the list conforms to the criteria for eligibility to vote as laid down under the Act and the Rules. 11. This High Court while at Hyderabad a case in Kondaveeti Srinivasa Rao vs. The Government of A.P. Co-operation Department reported in 2014 (1) ALT 73 held that Under the above Sub-rule, if there are no omissions or commissions noticed while scrutinizing the final list, the Election Officer shall refer the same to the Chief Executive Officer or President of the Society for rectification. After such rectification, the Election Officer shall publish the final list of the voters along with the election schedule as prescribed in Form-I. Thus, under the scheme of the Rules, the Chief Executive Officer or President of the society alone has the power to prepare the Voters' list and the limited power conferred on the Election Officer is confined only to pointing out the omissions or commissions noticed while scrutinizing the list finalized by the Chief Executive Officer or President of the society. Except to the extent of the power conferred on the Election Officer, no other functionary, including the District Collector or District Co-Operative Officer or Divisional Co- Operative Officer, has any power whatsoever to interfere with the preparation and finalization of the voters' list. Therefore, it is always desirable that all these functionaries completely refrain from interfering with the election process of the society. 12. Despite the Court's directive to conduct the election but not to disclose the results, they have not conducted it. Therefore, it is always desirable that all these functionaries completely refrain from interfering with the election process of the society. 12. Despite the Court's directive to conduct the election but not to disclose the results, they have not conducted it. Respondents have watched the eccentricity without conducting elections. The respondents have a callous attitude towards court directives. Thus, the respondents are instructed to examine the petitioner's representation dated 02-02-2023 examine it thoroughly, issue the proper orders, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, election officer is directed to resume the election process as on 17.02.2023 strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Rule-22(2) of the Rules. He shall also strictly follow the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (vi) thereof with respect to finalization of the Voters' list. The respondents hereby directed to complete the elections as soon as possible, no later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 13. Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.