IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25254 of 2006 Between: Kondeti Asi Babu S/o Raja Rao R/o Water Tank Road, Rayalam, Bhimavaram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 District Cooperative Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru. 3 Divisional Cooperative Officer, Bhimavaram. 4 Election Officer/Asst. Registrar O/o Divisional Cooprative Officer, Bhimavaram. 5 The Bhimavaram Divisional Postal Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., No. 314 F. rep by Secretary. 6 Sri K.S.Raju S/o Venkatapathi Raju Bheemavaram Head post Office, President of the Bhimavaram Division Postal Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., No. 314 F, ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:Ms.A.Subba Lakshmi for Mrs D.Lalitha Prasad Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for respondent No.5: None appeared Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr.C.Ramachandra Raju The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not considering objections dated 02-12-2006 of the petitioner and in seeking to conduct election on 10-12-2006 by allowing 96 members of respondent No.5-society to participate in the election and respondent No.6 to contest the election as illegal and arbitrary apart from being contrary to the bylaws of respondent No.5-society. A perusal of the averments contained in the aﬃdavit shows that election notiﬁcation was issued by respondent No.1 on 23-10-2006 and published by respondent No.4 on the same day for holding election for the Managing Committee of respondent No.5-society; that according to the election programme, election will be conducted on 10-12-2006 and that the petitioner submitted his nomination for election as member of the Managing Committee. The petitioner further pleaded that respondent No.6 was elected as President of respondent No.5-society for two consecutive terms and completed the said two terms and that therefore, under bylaw No.27 of the society bylaws, he is not eligible for contesting for the third term. The petitioner also questioned admission of 96 members on the ground that without proper veriﬁcation and following the proper procedure they were admitted as members and that therefore, they are not eligible to participate in the election. On 04-12-2006, this Court, while admitting the writ petition, passed an interim order directing the respondents to permit the members from G.L.Nos.863 to 958 of respondent No.5–society to cast their votes, but the said votes shall be kept in a separate ballot box. It was further directed that after counting process is completed, if there is any necessity to count the votes cast by these members, the respondents shall obtain the permission of this Court before proceeding further. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, it is stated that the petitioner failed to ﬁle any objections to the proposed admission of 96 members before respondent No.4. It is also contended that the petitioner has an eﬀective remedy by way of election petition under Section 61(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) and therefore, the writ petition filed bypassing the said remedy is liable to be dismissed. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others[1] and contended that on the petitioner’s own showing, election notiﬁcation was issued before the ﬁling of the writ petition and, therefore, the only remedy for the petitioner is to ﬁle an election petition, raising an election dispute, under Section 61(3) of the Act. I n Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that preparation of voters’ list forms part of the election process and that therefore, any dispute relating to the preparation of voters’ list falls within the realm of election dispute. Since the petitioner has an eﬀective remedy of raising an election dispute under Section 61(3) of the Act, I am not inclined to adjudicate the writ petition on merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the said remedy. If the petitioner ﬁles an election petition before the competent authority, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, the same shall be received and adjudicated on merits. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 04-12-2006 is vacated. WPMP Nos.32338 and 32339 of 2006 are dismissed and WVMP No.485 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th September, 2008 vrn [1] (2001) 8 SCC 509