HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9144 of 2010 22nd April 2010 Between: N. Krupa Rao … PETITIONER(S) and The District Coop. Officer/Election Officer, Hindustan Aeronautics Employees Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9144 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri A.V.Gopala Rao, Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to be a founder member of the 7th respondent-Society and alleges deletion of the names of several members from the voters list. He seeks postponement of the election till their names are included therein. The 7th respondent-Society is in the management of a person-in-charge committee whose chairman is the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Sri A.V.Gopala Rao, Learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the second respondent had colluded and was acting as a shadow management to the erstwhile committee. The averment in support thereof is referable to paragraph-14 wherein all that is stated is that the managing committee was dissolved on 29.01.2010 on completion of its term; is now running a shadow management committee for its personal gains by obstructing respondent nos.1 to 6 from doing their official duties; the respondents, having noticed the same, did not act to protect the members of the Society; and the same is ultra vires and illegal. Reference is also made in this regard to paragraph-19 wherein it is stated that the Society, on coming to know of the election notification issued by the person-in-charge way back on 10.02.2010 along with the list of voters showing the 525 members as the members of the Society, had requested the person-in-charge to furnish information which was refused. These allegations, at best, constitute an illegal act and do not amount to malice. The degree of proof to establish malice is of a very high order and such a plea should not only be specifically made but also be established by cogent evidence. Even otherwise a plea of malice against an individual can only be examined if he is arrayed as a respondent eo-nominee. (State of Bihar vs. P.P.Sarma[1]). In the absence of the second respondent being made a party eo-nominee, I see no reason to examine the plea of malice. The petitioner herein, along with ten others, had invoked the jurisdiction of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal by filing I.A.No.58 of 2010 in C.T.A.No.7 of 2010 wherein they had requested the Tribunal to suspend the General Body resolution dated 20.09.2009 disqualifying the membership of the petitioners and had sought a direction to include the name of the petitioners in the Voters List to enable them to participate in the Elections scheduled to be held on 14.03.2010. The Tribunal, by its order dated 03.03.2010, held that the prayer to include the petitioners names in the voters list would amount to interfering with the elections set in motion by the District Election Authority/ District Collector; the Apex Court had held that there should be no interference with the Election already set into motion since parties are left with the redressal to question the elections itself. The Tribunal, while staying the disqualification of petitioners from the membership of the Society by resolution dated 20.09.2009, dismissed the rest of the prayer. In effect the petitioner’s request that their names be included in the voters list was negatived by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is not under challenge in this Writ Petition. Having suffered an order before the Tribunal, the petitioner herein would now seek a similar direction from this Court albeit under the guise of a request for postponement of the election. Under Section 61(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as – ‘the Act’), every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election to a committee of a society shall be referred for decision to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, 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. In the light of Section 61 (3) and (4) of the Act, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file Election Petition that too after declaration of results and not prior thereto. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he is so aggrieved by the election, to avail the remedies under Section 61(3) and (4) of the Act, I see no reason to interdict the election process. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 22nd April 2010 CVRK Note: Issue copy within one week. B/o Cvrk/asp [1] AIR 1991 SC 1260