HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.8331 of 2011 Date : 29-3-2011 Between: Srikalahasti Co-operative Town Bank Depositors Samkshema Samithi, Represented by its General Secretary M.Govindaiah .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Co-operation (Coop.III) Department, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for respondents : G.P. for Co-operation The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside Memo No.17021/Coop-III(2)/2010-I, dated 12-1-2011 of respondent No.1 and consequential proceedings Rc.No.1352/2009-C2, dated 14-3-2011 of respondent No.3. The petitioner is a society registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. Some of the depositors of respondent No.5 are the members of the petitioner-society. Respondent No.5 was on the verge of liquidation. By order dated 15-5-2009, respondent No.3 has appointed an Election Officer for holding elections to the Managing Committee of respondent No.5. On 8-6-2009, respondent No.3 has published the election schedule. On 20-6-2009, respondent No.1 has issued proceedings granting stay of elections mainly on the ground that the Person-in-charge Committee has recovered loans to a substantial extent and that a sum of Rs.5.50 crores was yet to be recovered as on 31-3-2009. Respondent No.1 accordingly while extending the term of the Person-in-charge Committee for another six months, granted stay of the elections until further orders. It has come on record that the said order was communicated to respondent No.5 on 23-6-2009 by which time it has published the list of valid nominations. In view of receipt of stay orders, the further process towards elections was stopped on 23-6-2009. Evidently, the term of the Person-in-charge Committee was further extended and the same is coming to an end on 31-3-2011. On 12-1-2011, respondent No.1 has given a direction to respondent No.3 to complete the election process. Accordingly, by order dated 14-3-2011, respondent No.3 has directed to recommence the election process from the stage where it was stopped. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the said order of respondent No.3 to the extent he has directed the resumption of the election process from the stage where it was stopped. According to it, there are about 300 members who have not paid even the membership fee but were included in the voters’ list. The deponent to the affidavit who is the General Secretary of the petitioner also averred that as he was proposing to file his nomination, in view of the stay granted by respondent No.1, his nomination was not accepted and therefore recommencement of the election process without issuing fresh notification causes prejudice to his interests. After hearing Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition is without any merit. In the first place, the petitioner which claims to be an association of depositors cannot have any locus to question the election process. Even assuming that some of the members who have not paid the membership fee have been included in the voters’ list, the petitioner being an association of depositors cannot claim to have been aggrieved by the said inclusion. The petitioner, at best, is interested in proper administration of respondent No.5-Bank. With regard to the claim of the General Secretary of the petitioner that his nomination was not accepted on account of stay, except his ipsi dixit, no material is furnished to show that he attempted to file his nomination and that the same was not accepted. If such a claim was correct, he should have availed appropriate remedy for acceptance of his nomination. The law is well settled that once the election process is set in motion, the courts should not ordinarily interfere with the same. The aggrieved person is only entitled to avail the remedy of an election petition. (See: N.P. Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal [1], Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [2], Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others [3], Dhulipalla Narendra Kumar vs. A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, Krishna District & others [4]. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.10344/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 29-3-2011 AM [1] AIR 1952 SC 64 [2] AIR 1978 SC 851 [3] (2001) 8 SCC 509 [4] 2011(1) ALD 292