HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5779 of 2010 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: Aderi Appa Rao and eleven others. … Petitioner and The Government of A.P. rep., by its Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Co-operation Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents. HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.5779 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are members of the Anakapalli Rural Electric Cooperative Society (for short ‘Society’) which is said to have 98160 members comprising 92137 of ‘B’ Class and 6023 of ‘C’ Class. The Society was formed with the object of purchasing electricity from the Electricity Board/A.P.Transco and distributing it to its members at a fair price. The last elections to the managing committee of the Society were, admittedly, held more than seventeen years ago in the year 1992. This Court, by order in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009, directed the Government either to take steps to merge the Society with A.P. Transco or to hold elections. Pursuant thereto the Government decided to hold elections. Proceedings dated 20.02.2010 was issued and the election schedule was announced. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the elections to the managing committee of the Society, now proposed to be held, is in violation of Rules 18, 21(B), 22(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) etc and the prescription with regards subscription of membership fee, the period specified for the calling of objections, for preparation and publishing the list of eligible members etc have not been adhered to. Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners have been regularly paying small amounts to the credit of the Society which far exceed Rs.300/- payable as subscription for membership to class “B” and, in such circumstances, they could not have been denied membership and the right to participate in the elections. Learned counsel would submit that, while seven days time is prescribed under the Rules for the Chief Executive Officer/President of the Society to prepare and publish the list of members eligible to vote and to invite claims or objections from the members, the schedule specified only six days. Learned counsel would submit that holding elections on the basis of a defective voters list, and in violation of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, was but a mockery of an election necessitating this Court interdicting the entire election process. Learned counsel would further state that despite the petitioners having submitted detailed representations in this regard, to the Government, the Commissioner and Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Election Authority, the respondents have not considered them till date. Under Section 61(3) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) 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, and whose decision thereon shall be final. Under Section 61(4) of the Act, 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. As noted hereinabove, the last election held to the Society was in the year 1992 and, thereafter, for the past nearly eighteen years no elections have been held. This Court faulted the respondents in not holding elections and, in its order in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009, directed the Government either to take steps to merge this Society with A.P. Transco or to hold elections. The elections now sought to be held is in compliance with the orders of this Court in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009 While Sri M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, may well be justified in contending that, as no election notification has been issued, the petitioners are not barred from invoking this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the fact remains that this Court would not, ordinarily, exercise its discretion to entertain a writ petition seeking postponement of the election when the grounds of challenge, to the validity of the elections proposed to be held, can as well be agitated by way of an election petition under Sections 61(3) & (4) of the Act. In the present case, elections are being held pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009. This coupled with the fact that no elections have been held to the Society for the past nearly eighteen years, ever since the year 1992, would necessitate exercise of restraint by this Court from interdicting the election process and to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of an election petition before the competent Election Tribunal under Sections 61(3) and (4) of the Act. The petitioners claim to have filed representations before the respondents highlighting several deficiencies in preparation of the voters list and the manner of conduct of elections. I have no reason to doubt that the respondents shall consider the representations submitted by the petitioners and take action, at the earliest, in accordance with law. As no elections were held from 1992 onwards and as this Court, by order in W.P. No.8544 of 2007 dated 28.08.2009, directed that elections be held, I see no reason to interdict the election process till the representations are disposed of. Leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedies of filing an election petition, before the Election Tribunal, under Sections 61(3) and (4) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:12.03.2010 USD/MRKR