THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 1829 OF 2008 DATED: 1.2.2008 Between: Nadakuduru Prasad Petitioner And The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Guntur, Guntur District and others. Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 1829 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the conduct of elections to the 3rd respondent Kasthala Sand & Boat Workers Cooperative Society Limited. The petitioner claims to be a member of the 3rd respondent society. It is his case that the term of office of the Managing Committee elected in the year 2002 expired on 19.10.2007 and majority of the members of the society made a representation to the 2nd respondent to conduct elections. Instead of conducting elections to the society forthwith, a person in-charge committee was appointed. It is also his case that no elections as such were conducted to the 3rd respondent society so far, but the 4th respondent has declared that the elections to the society had already been conducted and he was elected as the President and respondents 5 to 12 have been elected as Directors of the said society in the elections conducted on 10.1.2008 at Mandal Parisahd Primary School, Harizanawada Colony, Kasthala Village; that the 12th respondent was appointed as the Election Officer by the Managing Committee vide resolution dated 24.11.2007 for conducting the said elections. In view of the statement made by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the petitioner has submitted an application to the 1st respondent under Right to Information Act to supply the proceedings of the alleged elections to the Managing Committee of the society dated 10.1.2008 and accordingly all the documents were supplied to him. It is his case that all the said documents are fabricated and thus requests this Court to set aside the elections to the society. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the documents furnished to the petitioner by the 1st respondent in proof of the fact that the elections were conducted are fabricated by the respondents; that elections to the 3rd respondent society were, in fact, not conducted either on 10.1.2008 or on any other date and that if really the elections were conducted as stated, respondents 4 to 12 could not have been elected as they did not possess any boats and license from the PWD department as per the bye-laws of the society. It is further contended that the Head Master of the school in which the elections were stated to have been conducted has also given in writing that no such elections were conducted in the school as alleged and that 10.1.2008 is a working day for the school. Whether elections to the 3rd respondent society were, in fact, conducted or not and if so whether the elected persons are eligible members are all purely questions of fact. Such disputed questions of fact, the law is well settled, cannot be gone into by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the provisions of Section 61(3) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, which states that every dispute relating to, or in connection with any election to a committee of a society shall be referred for decision to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, who decision shall be final, I am of the considered opinion that the said question cannot be gone into by this Court in this writ petition and the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal. In fact, this Court in M.Ramachandra Reddy and Others v. Government of A.P[1] considered similar question as is involved in this writ petition, and held that even if it was assumed that there were certain irregularities in enrolment of the members of the society and preparation of the voters list, as held by the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharastra[2] the same can at the most be a valid ground to raise an election dispute after the declaration of the result, an that sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61 of the Act in clear terms provide that any dispute relating to any election to a committee of a society shall be referred to the Tribunal only after the date of declaration of the result of such election. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 1.2.2008 msv [1] 2006(2) ALD 296 [2] (2001) 8 SCC 509