IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21878 of 2008 Between: 1 Gangi Bikshapathi S/o. Ramulu R/o. Eturu Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2 Devi Yellaiah S/o. Pullaiah R/o. Eturu Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Eturu Fisherman Industrial Cooperative Society, Rep. by its Person-in-Charge, Fisheries Development Officer, Thumadam Cum Election Officer. 2 The Assistant Director Fisheries, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 The Commissioner, Fisheries, Hyderabad. 4 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the elections to be held on 3-10-2008 to the Fisherman Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd., Eturu Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District as illegal, arbitrary, and also in violation of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act & Rules and also in Violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the residents of Eturu Village, Tirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. The elections to the Managing Committee of the Eturu Fishermen Industrial Co- operative Society were notiﬁed. The District Collector, the fourth respondent herein, had appointed the Fisheries Development Officer, as Election Officer. The latter, in turn, issued notice under Rule 22(B) 4 (D) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules (for short ‘the Rules’), on 25.09.2008. He ﬁxed the date of election as 03.10.2008. The petitioner challenges the election notiﬁcation, mainly on the ground that the voters’ list was not properly prepared. The petitioners contend that the application submitted by them seeking membership, has not been disposed of as yet and though they are deemed to have become members, their names were not included in the voters’ list. It is also alleged that several persons, who are not members, were included in the voters’ list. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. The Rules prescribe a detailed procedure for preparation of voters’ list. Before election notiﬁcation is issued, a detailed exercise is undertaken, in the context of preparation of voters’ list. Eﬀected parties would be entitled to submit their objections. The petitioners do not appear to have raised any objection to the draft voters’ list. Once the election notiﬁcation has been issued, this Court cannot interfere in the matter, except where patent illegality is pointed out. There do not exist any grounds for this Court to interfere in the election process. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.30.09.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ