HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.27498 of 2008 ORDER: The election notification dated 8.12.2008, issued by the respondent to hold election for the 4th respondent society, is questioned in this writ petition as having been fixed without following the mandatory procedure contemplated under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. The allegations in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would highlight several discrepancies in the voters list. Petitioners would contend that, despite objections having been submitted to the provisional electoral list highlighting the fact that more than 300 persons from another District, who were temporarily residing in the village, were included in the voters list, that dead persons names were still to be found in the voters list, the objections were not considered and the electoral list was finalized on 7.12.2008. Sri T.C.Krishnan, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, would contend that 22.12.2008 is fixed as the last date for receipt of nomination, for scrutiny thereof and for elections to be held on the very same date. Learned counsel would point out the unseemly haste in which the entire process of elections are being proceeded with subverting all rules of fair play including the bye-laws of the society. Learned counsel would place reliance on Tadam Satish v. District Collector, Nalgonda[1] in this regard. Learned G.P. for Fisheries, on the other hand, would submit that, under Section 61(3) and (4) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, all these questions were matters for enquiry by an Election Tribunal on its jurisdiction being invoked. According to the Learned Government Pleader, the 1st petitioner is not even a member of the society and the second petitioner who was hitherto a member, had ceased to be a member on his name being deleted as a result of his failure to pay subscription fee. She would further state, on instructions, that the only two objection petitions received were on 1.12.2008 and 7.12.2008 and that neither of these two petitions make any reference to any dead person. She would state that the representation dated 5.12.2008, on which the petitioners place reliance, was not received by the respondents before the cut off date on 7.12.2008. I see no reason to examine any of the contentions raised in this writ petition for, under Section 61(3) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election to a committee of the society shall be referred for decision of the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, whose decision thereon shall be final. Under sub-section (4) thereof 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. It is evident from Section 61(3) and (4) that every dispute, in connection with an election to the managing committee of a society, is required to be referred for the decision of the Election Tribunal, that too only after the declaration of results. I n Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Uptpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra[2] the contention urged before the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was that the electoral roll was the substratum of the election for constituting the managing committee, that the same had not been prepared and finalized according to the mandatory rules, that no election could be held on such electoral rolls and that the same was liable to be set aside. The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that among the grounds, for declaration of an election to be void, was non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder and that, if there was a breach of the rule or certain mandatory provisions or the rules were not complied with while preparing the electoral rolls, the same could be challenged by means of an election petition. It was further held that preparation of electoral roll was part of the election process and, if there was any breach of the rules in preparing the electoral roll, the same could be called in question after the date of declaration of results by means of an election petition before the election tribunal. The judgment of the Supreme Court applies with all force to the facts of the present case. In Tadam Satish1, this Court observed that, while disputes if any had to be resolved through election petitions, in cases where serious irregularities which had the effect of subverting the very process of election had taken place, the same could be entertained. The attention of this Court was not drawn to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami2. It is well settled that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, and, as more or less identical question raised in the present writ petition has been held by the Supreme Court as matters which should be examined by an Election Tribunal on a petition being filed before it, I see no reason to entertain a writ petition questioning the validity of the electoral roll on the basis of which the elections are scheduled to be held on 22.12.2008. Leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all such contentions, as are raised in this writ petition, by way of election petition, if he is entitled to do so, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ---------------- 19-12-2008 ASP [1] 2007 (4) ALT 468 [2] (2001)8 SCC 509