THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 416 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioners, who are members of Roudri Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’), have filed this writ petition impugning the election notification dated 05.01.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, namely the Election Officer, for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the Society on 22.01.2008, as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the term of the Managing Committee of the Society is coming to an end on 22.01.2008, and as per Rule 22(2)(b) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), the election authority (the Registrar or the Collector) shall appoint an Election Officer to the society at least 45 days prior to the expiry of the term of the Managing Committee for the purpose of conducting the elections. He firstly submitted that the 3rd respondent contrary to the bye-laws of the Society without conducting general body meeting, and without approval of the members, has appointed the 2nd respondent as Election Officer, and as such, the appointment made is without jurisdiction and is ab initio void. He secondly submitted that since the petitioners are assailing the very appointment of the 2nd respondent as Election Officer, the election notification issued by him is bad, and as such, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is maintainable. He thirdly submitted that the 3rd respondent without inviting objections and claims from the members of the Society, as required under Rule 22(1)(b)(iii) of the Rules, has prepared the voters list by himself, and the same being contrary to the Rules, conducting of elections on the basis of such voters list, is bad. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Co-operation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 4 submitted that the Society is an unaided society, and since it is not receiving any aid from the State as specified in Section 43 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), as per the provisions of Section 31(2)(c) of the Act, it shall be the responsibility of the incumbent Managing Committee to hold elections before the expiry of the term in the manner specified in the bye-laws, and in view of this respondent Nos. 1 and 4 have no role to play in the conduct of elections to the Society. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a detailed counter. The learned counsel appearing on their behalf, reiterating the counter averments submitted that the meeting of the Executive Committee was held on 05.12.2007, wherein a resolution was passed appointing the 2nd respondent as Election Officer for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the Society. It is on the basis of this resolution, the 3rd respondent has appointed the 2nd respondent as Election Officer, and as such, neither the 3rd respondent can be said to have no jurisdiction to appoint the 2nd respondent as Election Officer nor the election notification issued by the 2nd respondent, for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the Society, can be said to be void ab initio. He contended that since the society is an unaided society, having regard to the provisions of Section 31-A of the Act and Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules, the Managing Committee is entitled to conduct elections in the manner specified in the byelaws of the Society before expiry of its term. In support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Bandaru Ramu v. Secretary to Government, Housing Department[1]. He further contended that since the petitioners are raising dispute in relation to the conduct of elections to the Managing Committee of the Society, having regard to the provisions of Section 61(3) of the Act, they have approach the Tribunal having jurisdiction, and writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, and in support of this argument he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dudgha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra[2]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Co-operation for respondent Nos. 1 and 4 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Admittedly, the Society is an unaided society. It is not receiving any State as aid as specified in Section 43 of the Act. Since the Society is not receiving any State aid, the Government has no role to play the affairs of the Society. As per Section 31-A(8) of the Act and Rule 22(1)(a) of the Rules, it is the right of the incumbent Managing Committee to conduct elections to the Managing Committee in the manner specified in the bye-laws before expiry of its term. In fact, in Bandaru Ramu v. Secretary to Government, Housing Department, this Court had held that once it is not in dispute that the society is not in receipt of any State aid, as specified in Section 43 of the Act, under Section 31(2(c) of the Act, it shall be the responsibility of the incumbent Managing Committee to hold elections before expiry of its term. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the 3rd respondent without conducting any general body meeting has appointed the 2nd respondent as Election Officer, a perusal of the record, especially copy of the minutes, produced by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shows that a meeting of the Executive Committee was held on 05.12.2007, wherein it was decided to nominate the 2nd respondent as Election Officer, and on the basis of this decision, the 3rd respondent has appointed the 2nd respondent as Election Officer to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of the Society. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners disputed the same contending that till 30.12.2007, no meeting was held, and the record produced by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has been fabricated for the purpose of this case. Whether the copy of the minutes dated 05.12.2007 of the Executive Meeting of the Society produced by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, empowering the 3rd respondent to nominate the 2nd respondent as Election Officer, is a genuine or fabricated one, being a disputed question, cannot be decided in the writ petition. Be that as it may, the questions raised by the petitioners, namely whether the 3rd respondent had convened the Executive Committee meeting of the Society before appointing the 2nd respondent as Election Officer for conducting elections to the Managing Committee of the Society, whether the copy of the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting dated 05.12.2007, produced by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has been fabricated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the purpose of this case, whether the 3rd respondent had jurisdiction to appoint the 2nd respondent as Election Officer, whether the 2nd respondent was justified in issuing election notification in pursuance of his appointment as Election Officer, whether under the Rules, the 3rd respondent was required to call for objections and claims from the members, and then prepare the voters list, are questions which relate to an election to a Managing Committee, and they being disputed questions of fact, the law is well settled cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In fact, under Section 61(3) and (4) of the A.P. Societies Act, 1964, every dispute relating to or in connection with any election to a Managing Committee, shall be referred for decision to the Tribunal. Section 61(3) and (4) reads as follows: (3) 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 shall be final. (4) Every dispute relating to, or in connection with any election shall be referred under sub-section (3) only after the date of declaration of result of such election. Since the disputes raised by the petitioners relate to election to the Managing Committee of the Society, and the election process having been put in motion, the petitioners have to avail the remedy available to them under Section 61(3) and (4) of the Act, by approaching the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area and raise an election dispute. I n Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra[3], the apex Court held that even if it was assumed that there were irregularities in enrolment of members in the preparation of voters list, the same at most can be a valid ground to raise an election dispute after the declaration of the result, and that sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61 of the Act in clear terms provide that any dispute relating to any election to a committee of a society shall be referred to the Tribunal only after the date of declaration of the result of such election. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable, and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioners, having regard to the provision of Section 61(3 and (4) of the Act, are at liberty to approach the Tribunal after declaration of the results of the election. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 22nd January, 2008. KSR [1] 2006 (3) ALD 206 [2] (2001) 8 SCC 509 [3] (2001) 8 SCC 509