*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY + WRIT PETITION No.21685 of 2010 % Dated: 17-02-2011 # Anaparthi Parameswara Rao & others … Petitioners VERSUS $ The District Cooperative Officer-cum-Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, Eluru, West Godavari District And others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the petitioners: Sm. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi ^ Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Cooperation counsel for respondent No.3: Sri K. Chidambaram <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21685 of 2010 DT.17.02.2011 Between: Anaparthi Parameswara Rao and others … Petitioners And The District Cooperative Officer-cum-Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, Eluru, West Godavari District and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Cooperation Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri K.Chidambaram The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: 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 mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the eligible voters list as published along with the notice, dated 03.08.2010, for the elections scheduled to be held on 04.09.2010, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation representing respondent No.1, and Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel representing respondent No.3. The petitioners are members of respondent No.2-Society, which was registered under the provisions of the Act. Vide election notice, dated 03.08.2010, issued by respondent No.1, elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.2-Society were scheduled to be held on 04.09.2010. As the petitioners’ names are not included in the voters list, they filed this writ petition aggrieved thereby. This Court, by order, dated 31.08.2010, granted interim stay of the elections. Respondent No.3 got himself impleaded in the writ petition and sought for vacating the said order. At this stage, the writ petition is being disposed of. The petitioners pleaded that under Section 19(3) of the Act members of a society, who did not complete one year after their admission into the society, are ineligible to contest as members of Managing Committee and also to exercise their voting right in the Managing Committee elections. That bye-law No.11 of the bye-laws of the society also prescribes such condition of ineligibility. It is, however, their pleaded case that by resolution No.40/7, dated 23.05.2009 of the General Body of respondent No.2 society, 999 persons including the petitioners have become members and consequent thereto they have paid share capital during the period from 10.06.2009 to 30.06.2009. It is their further case that as the election notification was issued on 30.08.2009, much after their completing one year as members of the society, their exclusion from the voters’ list is patently illegal and arbitrary. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri K.Chidambram, learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed these contentions. They have contended that through resolution No.40/7 dated 23.05.2009 respondent No.2 society has merely resolved to admit 999 persons and that in pursuance thereof the said persons paid their share capital and admission fee up to 30.06.2009. They further submitted that thereafter the society has passed resolution No.66/15, dated 11.10.2009 admitting them as members of the society and that from the date of their admission they have not completed one year period by the time of election notification and thereby they have failed to acquire the eligibility either to contest the elections or participate therein as voters. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that in pursuance of the direction granted by this Court on 04.08.2010 in Writ Petition No.18024 of 2010 filed by the petitioners, respondent No.2 society has passed a resolution on 03.09.2010, rejecting the petitioners’ representation for including their names in the voters list. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 19(3) of the Act reads as under: “A person admitted as a member may exercise the rights of membership, including the right to vote, only on fulfillment of such conditions as may be laid down from time to time in the bye-laws. Provided that a person shall have been a member for at least one year before being eligible to exercise the right of vote. Provided further that the above proviso shall not apply to the promoter members in the first year or registration of a Cooperative Society.” It is not in dispute that bye-law No.10 of the Bye-laws of respondent No.2 society is to the same effect as Section 19(3) of the Act is. The only issue that needs to be decided in this case is whether the petitioners have completed one year period as members by the time of election notification. The uncontroverted facts contained in the counter affidavit of respondent No.3 would reveal that through resolution No.40/7, dated 23.05.2009, the applications of 999 persons including the petitioners were considered and the society has resolved to admit them as members. But, they were actually admitted as members through resolution No.66/15, dated 11.10.2009. During the interregnum, the petitioners and others have paid the share capital and admission fee. In my considered opinion, a person becomes a member of a society only on a resolution passed by the society concerned admitting him as its member. A mere resolution deciding to admit the applicants and their payment of share capital and admission fee will not automatically make them become members of the society. As noted above, in pursuance of the resolution to admit 999 persons and on completion of the necessary formality of payment of share capital and admission fee, respondent No.2 passed resolution on 11.10.2009 resolving to admit them as members. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on bye- law No.10 to buttress the petitioners’ plea that by payment of share capital and admission fee, they are deemed to have become members. A careful reading of the said bye-law would disclose that the society shall decide on the applications filed by the intending members within 90 days of receipt of the applications and if the society decides to admit the applicants, they shall pay Rs.100/- as share capital and Rs.15/- as admission fee. There is nothing in the bye-law from which it can be concluded that on payment of the share capital and admission fee the applicants become members. This bye-law only fixes responsibility on the applicants to pay share capital and membership fee following the decision of the society to admit them into the society. However, the act of admission is accomplished only with the passing of a resolution by the society admitting the applicants. Till then, it cannot be said that the applicants have become members of the society. Indeed, the petitioners have not disputed the fact that during the pendency of this Writ Petition the society has passed resolution No.99 of 2010, dated 03.09.2010 rejecting their request for permitting them to participate in the elections and this order has not been questioned by them. For all the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are permitted to proceed with the election in pursuance of the impugned election notification from the stage where it was stopped. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 31.08.2010, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.27589 of 2010, shall stand vacate and W.P.M.P.No.27589 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.5438 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 17.02.2011 VGB/ES