HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.28799 of 2011 Date : 26-12-2011 Between: Morla Sivaiah and others .. Petitioners And The Superintendent/Functional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Prohibition and Excise Department, Tenali Guntur District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri Y. Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondent No.1 : Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 : Sri Ch. Raghu Ram The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside notice in Rc.No.148/2011/A3, dated 17-10-2011 of respondent No.1. Petitioner No.1 is the President of Toddy Tappers Co- operative Society (for short “the Society”), Chilakaluvaripalem, Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District. In connection with a dispute arising in respect of election to the Managing Committee of the Society, certain members appeared to have approached respondent No.1 with the allegation that several irregularities were committed in conduct of elections to the Society. Respondent No.1 has issued the impugned notice purporting to exercise his power under Section 34(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short "the Act") wherein it is alleged that representations of some of the members were forwarded to the Station House Officer, Nagaram, for enquiry and submission of a report; that the Station House Officer has submitted a report which allegedly revealed that elections taken place on 14-10-2010 were not held as per the procedure laid down under Rule 22(b) of the A.P. Co- operative Society Rules, 1964 and that such elections were held in an irregular manner and detrimental to the interests of the members of the Society. By the impugned notice, the members of the Managing Committee were directed to explain within seven days from the date of its receipt as to why the Managing Committee elected on 14-10-2010 cannot be superseded under Section 34(1) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by this notice, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that since several irregularities were found to have been committed in holding of elections to the Managing Committee, the impugned notice was issued proposing supercession of the Managing Committee of the Society. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that under Section 61(3) of the Act, it is only the Co- operative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) which is vested with the power to decide every dispute pertaining to the election to the committee of a society and that therefore unless the aggrieved party approaches the Tribunal by way of an election dispute and a declaration is obtained from the Tribunal, respondent No.1 has no power or authority to issue the impugned notice for supercession of the Managing Committee of the Society. I have heard Sri Y.V. Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. Under Section 34(1) of the Act, if the Registrar is of the opinion that the committee is not functioning properly or it willfully disobeys or fails to comply willfully with any lawful order or direction issued by him under the Act or the Rules, the Registrar may, after giving the committee an opportunity of making its representation, by order supercede the committee from a specified date and appoint a Special Officer or a committee of two or more members to manage the affairs of the society. As rightly submitted that by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a dispute relating to the alleged irregularities in holding election to a society falls exclusively within the domain of the Tribunal as envisaged under Section 61(3) of the Act. Unless any, or all the aspects mentioned in Section 34(1) of the Act, namely, non- functioning of a society properly or willful disobedience or failure to comply with any lawful order or direction issued by the Registrar, exists, Section 34(1) of the Act is not attracted. The dispute relating to holding of elections is not one which falls under Section 34(1) of the Act for respondent No.1 to exercise his power for supercession of the Managing Committee. In other words, when respondent No.1 cannot directly interfere with election dispute, he cannot indirectly exercise his power in the guise of invoking the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction of respondent No.1 and the same is quashed. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. This order, however, will not preclude respondent Nos.2 to 5 or any other person aggrieved by the election to avail the remedy of election dispute before the Tribunal in accordance with Section 61(3) of the Act. As a sequel, WPMP No.35611/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 26-12-2011 AM