THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 1298 OF 2007 DATED: .2.2008 Between: NVAN Raju Petitioner And The Registrar of Cooperative Societies and others. Respondents THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO. 1298 of 2008 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the conduct of elections to the 6th respondent society on the ground that the same is contrary to the judgment of this Court and also the provisions of Rule 22-B of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) and consequently to direct the respondents to conduct elections to the 6th respondent society after weeding out the names of the ineligible voters from the voters list. The petitioner claims to be the Ex-Secretary of the 6th respondent House Building Society. It is his case that earlier he filed Writ Petition No.11465 of 2007 questioning the action of the respondent in conducting elections to the society with ineligible members and this Court disposed of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to raise objections and point out his grievances as and when draft voters list is published as required under Rule 22 of the Rules and the respondents were directed to consider those objections before finalising the voters list. Stating that the said orders were not properly complied with, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.22384 of 2007 and this Court after considering the issue, disposed of the writ petition along with some other similar writ petitions in the following manner. “Though several contentions have been urged by all the parties, ultimately all the parties have agreed to dispose of the writ petitions in the following manner. 1. The learned Government Pleader seeks eight weeks time to complete the entire election process for which the petitioners also agree. Therefore, the District Collector-cum-Election Officer is directed to complete the election process within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 2. In view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.11465 of 2007 dated 5.6.2007 to consider the objections raised by the petitioner whenever draft voters list is published, the Election Officer is directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioner as per the orders of this Court in the said writ petition before finalising the voters list.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contrary to the above directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent has issued revised election schedule for conducting elections to the 6th respondent society and the 5th respondent has issued election notice. It is stated that on 14.10.2007 the Election Officer has called for objections on draft voters list, for which the petitioner submitted his objection stating that 7 members were admitted as members of the society by the earlier Managing Committee subject to the ratification by the General Body Meeting and their names have to be included and some other persons names have to be deleted but the said aspect was not considered by the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that as per the present election notice, the mode of election is a secret ballot and a detailed procedure is contemplated where as Rule 22-B of the Rules contemplates mode of election by show of hands and, therefore, the present election notice is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the same is liable to be stayed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgments of this Court in B.Rajagopala Rao v. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies [1]. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader. Admittedly, in the earlier rounds of litigation, this Court has directed the authorities concerned to consider the objections raised by the petitioner whenever draft voters list is published as per the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11465 of 2007 dated 5.6.2007. It is stated by the learned Government Pleader that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the authorities have considered the objections raised by the petitioner and thereafter only the present election notice is issued. It is also stated by the learned Government Pleader that the election schedule is already issued on 21.1.2008 and nominations have to be filed on or before 28.1.2008. Thus it is clear that the election process has commenced. That apart, this Court dealing with a matter concerning elections to the Cooperative Societies in M.Ramachandra Reddy v. Government of A.P[2] after referring to the judgments of the Division Benches of this Court in M.A.Sami Khan v. the District Collector[3] and M.A.R.V.S.Sai Baba v. Commissioner of Cooperative Societies[4] held that even assuming that there were certain irregularities in enrolment of the members of the society and preparation of voters list, the same can, at the most be a valid ground to raise an election dispute after the declaration of the result. 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 or society shall be referred to the Tribunal only after the date of declaration of the result of such election as held by the Apex Court i n Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharastra[5]. I n M.A.R.V.S.Sai Baba v. Commissioner of Coop. Societies (4 supra) while dealing with an issue relating to postponement of election under Rule 22-AAA of the Rules, which were in force at that point of time, a Division Bench of this Court held; “The matter relating to irregularities in the electoral list-either wrong admission of members or wrong deletion of the valid members from the electoral roll- is not a matter which falls for action under Rule 22-AAA of the Rules in view of the discussion mentioned supra as this is one squarely covered either by Section 32(7)(a) of the Act before the commencement of the election process or Section 61(3) of the Act or sub-sections (3) and(4) of Section 61 of the Act after the election process starts. “ Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no dispute that the process of election has commenced and as such staying of the elections on the ground that certain irregularities committed in the electoral list cannot be ordered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the most that can be a ground to raise an election dispute after the declaration of result. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the fact that the election process has already commenced, the contention raised by the petitioner that ineligible persons are included and eligible persons are excluded from the voters list without considering his objections, can at the best be a ground to raise a dispute before the appropriate forum under Section 61 of the Act and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere in such matters. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: ..2..2008 msv [1] 1967 An.W.R. 27 (DB) [2] 2006(2) ALD 296 [3] 1992(1) ALT 611 (DB) [4] 1999(2) ALT 533 (DB) [5] (2001) 8 SCC 509