HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5821 of 2010 Date: 15.03.2010 Between: Nelapati Thrinadha Rao and others … Petitioner and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Co-operative Society Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents. HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5821 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; the learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. At their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Petitioners six in number seek a direction from this Court to declare the election proceedings dated 20.02.2010 issued by the 3rd respondent fixing the date of election as 28.03.2010 without any prior publication enabling the persons to enroll themselves as voters and the action of the 1st and 2nd respondents, in not considering their representations dated 03.03.2010 and 10.03.2010 submitted on behalf of the members of the 4th respondent-society seeking exemption from payment of minimum share capital of Rs.300/- on the ground that such exemption was given to other societies by the 2nd respondent- Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), Rules 18 and 22 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) and as violative of principles of natural justice. The 4th respondent is a registered co-operative society of which the petitioners are members. Membership of the society is categorized into ‘B’ & ‘C’ categories and the eligibility for a member to vote in an election is if he subscribes for a minimum share capital of Rs.300/-. On the ground that the petitioners had not paid Rs.300/- towards minimum subscription their names were not included in the voters list. The last elections to elect the managing committee of the 4th respondent society was held in 1992. This Court, by order in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009, directed the Government to either merge the 4th respondent with A.P. Transco or hold elections. The petitioners would contend that imposition of a condition, that only those who paid Rs.300/- were entitled to be included in the voters list, was illegal; the Registrar had granted exemption to other societies from complying with this condition; and non-inclusion of their names in the voters list on this ground was arbitrary and illegal. They would also allege violation of the procedure prescribed, for conducting elections, under Rule 22 of the Rules. Under Section 61(3) of the Act every dispute relating to, or in connection with any election to a committee of a society shall be referred for the decision of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, and whose decision thereon shall be final. Under Section 61(4) of the Act, every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election shall be referred under sub-section (3) only after the date of declaration of the result of such election. As noted hereinabove, the last election held to the Society was in the year 1992 and, thereafter, for the past nearly eighteen years no elections have been held. This Court faulted the respondents in not holding elections and, in its order in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009, directed the Government either to take steps to merge this Society with A.P. Transco or to hold elections. The elections now sought to be held is in compliance with the orders of this Court in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009. While Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, may well be justified in contending that, as no election notification has been issued, the petitioners are not barred from invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the fact remains that this Court would not, ordinarily, exercise its discretion to entertain a writ petition seeking postponement of the election when the grounds of challenge, to the validity of the elections proposed to be held, can as well be agitated by way of an election petition under Sections 61(3) & (4) of the Act. In the present case, elections are being held pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009. This coupled with the fact that no elections have been held to the Society for the past nearly eighteen years, ever since the year 1992, would necessitate exercise of restraint by this Court from interdicting the election process and to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of an election petition before the competent Election Tribunal under Sections 61(3) and (4) of the Act. In support of their plea of discrimination, the petitioners have filed copies of the orders said to have been issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 18.02.2008 in respect of Chittivalasa Jute Mills Cooperative Stores and in respect of the Rural Electric Cooperative Society in Sircilla of Karimnagar District dated 14.09.2006. The question whether the petitioners are entitled to have their names included in the voters list without payment of minimum subscription is a matter which can as well be agitated by way of an election petition. The representations said to have been submitted by the petitioners on 03.03.2010 and 10.03.2010 are of recent origin and have, obviously, been filed in view of the impending elections to the 4th respondent society. Whether the petitioners are similarly situated to the other societies; whether they are entitled for exemption on par with the others, etc are all matters to be decided by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. I have no reason to doubt that the 2nd respondent would consider these representations, at the earliest, in accordance with law. I do not, however, consider it appropriate to interdict the election process on this ground. As no elections were held from 1992 onwards and as this Court, by order in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009, directed that elections be held, I see no reason to interdict the election process till the representations submitted by the petitioners are disposed of. Leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing an election petition, before the Election Tribunal, under Sections 61(3) and (4) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:15.03.2010 Note: Operative portion by wire at party’s costs. B/o CVRK/MRKR