HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12607 of 2010 4th June 2010 Between: Sri Turaka Ramaiah and another … PETITIONER(S) and The District Collector & District Election Authority, Krishna at Machilipatnam and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12607 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Kowturu Vinayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Fisheries. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The first petitioner is the Ex-President and second petitioner is the Secretary of the 2nd respondent Fishermen Cooperative Society. The petitioners would allege that a person incharge committee was constituted and they sought to induct new members only for the purpose of election to deprive eligible and genuine fishermen of their rights under the Act. The petitioners had earlier filed W.P. No.10712 of 2009 and this Court, by order dated in WPMP. No.13713 of 2009 dated 29.05.2009, directed the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioners representation objecting the admission of new members. It is the petitioners case that, despite pendency of the Writ Petition, the 3rd and 4th respondents had initiated action to conduct elections furnishing a wrong list of voters after deleting majority of the members and, while the strength of the total membership is 47, the voters list prepared only 18 members and the petitioners name did not figure in the main list. Reference is made by the petitioners to the fact that the 1st respondent, by order dated 28.04.2010, had appointed the 2nd respondent as the Election Officer and had issued a notification dated 28.04.2010 for holding elections on 07.06.2010 by show of hands, as per the procedure laid down under Rule 22B of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964. It is the petitioners’ grievance that the impugned election notification issued by the 1st respondent, and the voters list prepared by the respondent nos.2 to 4, are illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the record. Reference is made by Sri K. Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioners, to the counter affidavit filed in the other Writ Petition. Learned Counsel would submit that the petitioners had filed objections/representation before the 1st and 2nd respondents on 31.05.2010; without conducting an inquiry, and without issuing individual notices, the petitioners names had been deleted; the order of this Court, in WPMP No.13713 of 2009 in W.P. No.10712 of 2009, had not been complied with and their representation has not yet been disposed of. If, as contended by the petitioners, the respondents have violated the orders of this Court, the remedy is not by way of a subsequent Writ Petition but to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act to have the contemnors punished for violating the orders of the Court. Section 61 (3) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (for short – ‘the Act’), provides that 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, whose decision thereon shall be final. Section 61 (4) of the Act provides that every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election shall be referred under Section 61(3) of the Act only after the date of declaration of the result of such election. If, as contended by the petitioners, the respondents are conducting elections on the basis of an illegal voters list, the remedy available to them is by way of an election petition. The election cannot be interdicted, at this stage, merely on the ground that their representation submitted by the petitioner is still pending consideration of the respondents. Leaving it open to the petitioners, if they so choose, to raise a dispute, regarding exclusion of their names from the voters list, by way of an election petition under Section 61(3) & (4) of the Act, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 4th June 2010 CVRK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12607 of 2010 4th June 2010 CVRK