THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11485 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioners have filed this Writ Petition to declare the action on the part of Respondents in deleting the names of the petitioners from the valid voters list of the Scheduled Tribes Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Guntur and conducting the elections to the managing committee without considering their representation dated 15-04-2011 as illegal. 2. The petitioners claim that they are the members of the 3rd respondent society. It is stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 became members on 09-04-1998 and the third petitioner on 01-07- 1984. It is their case that since the date of their enrolment they remained as members and also participated in the previous elections which took place in the month of April, 2006. 3. The 2nd Respondent issued a notification on 07-04-2011 for conducting election of the members of the managing committee of the 3rd respondent-society. It is stated that names of the petitioners were not shown in the voters list published along with the said notification. After noticing the same they alleged to have made a representation dated 16-04-2011 to the 2nd Respondent to conduct an enquiry into the deletion of their names from the voters list. It is stated that without responding to the said representation, the 2nd Respondent is proceeding with the schedule of the said election notification. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court for the aforesaid relief. 4. Heard Sri K.Anand Rao, learned counsel representing Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners have been the members of the 3rd respondent-society ever since their enrolment and they never seized to be the members. The petitioners have no knowledge how their names were deleted, therefore, they made a representation to the 2nd Respondent complaining the alleged illegal deletion of their names and therefore it is incumbent upon the 2nd Respondent to conduct an enquiry into the deletion of their names from the voters list. 6. I am not inclined to accept the said contention. Rule 22 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 prescribes the procedure for conducting election to the committees of societies. Sub-Rule 2 thereof provides for the appointment of election officers. The Registrar and the Collector of the District shall be the election authority and the election authority shall appoint an election officer in the manner provided in Sub-Rule 2 (b). On such appointment the election officer shall issue communication of election and requisition for production of records and the voters list of the society stipulating a time schedule for fulfilling the requisition to the society within three days from the date of receipt of his/her appointment orders. Thereupon, the Chief Executive Officer or the President of the society as the case may be shall prepare and publish the list of members eligible to vote within seven days after the receipt of communication from the election officer. The list shall indicate serial number (general number), name of member, father’s name and other relevant particulars. It also provided that Chief Executive Officer or the President as the case may be shall invite the claims or objections within 7 days thereafter and thereafter communicate the list of members eligible to vote to the election officer on the date specified by the election authority. After receipt of final list of members eligible, the election officer shall verify the cases and satisfy himself that the list conforms to the criteria for eligibility to vote as laid down under the Act and Rules. If there are any omissions and commissions noticed while scrutinizing the list, the election officer shall refer the same to the Chief Executive Officer or the President of the society as the case may be for rectification and after such rectification, the election officer shall publish the final list of the voters along with the schedule as prescribed in Form I. 7. The aforesaid rule clearly lays down that the list of voters shall be prepared by the Chief Executive Officer or the President of the concerned society and the election officer may go ahead with the list so submitted unless he has noticed any omissions or commissions. In the instant case indisputably such list has been prepared by the President of the society and the election officer has accepted and published the same. As noticed above, as per Rule 22 (2) (b) (iii) a list shall be prepared by the concerned Chief Executive Officer or the President of the society only after inviting objections. The petitioners do not complain or urge that the President of the 3rd respondent-society has not made such exercise. It is therefore clear that the list was prepared only after inviting objections. If really the petitioners had any grievance, they could have raised objections as and when objections were invited. No such objections were raised by the petitioners as mentioned. They have not even disputed in the present writ petition that the procedure contemplated under Rule 22 (2)(b)(iii) has not been followed. In this view of the matter, the President of the 3rd Respondent-society cannot be said to have committed any illegality in sending the list of the voters to the election officer for the eventual acceptance of the said list by the election officer. 8. The learned counsel however says that he made an objection before the election officer subsequent to the election notification. I am of the considered view that objection at this stage is not tenable. Any subsequent objection after election procedure has been notified is not envisaged under the statutory provisions. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21st April, 2011. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.11485 of 2011 Date : 21-04-2011 Between : Meda Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner And The District Cooperative Officer, Guntur, Guntur District and Others .. Respondents