IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.15809 of 2009 BETWEEN Devarakonda Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Aged 40 years, R/o.Mathivari Palem, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. …Petitioner AND Commissioner of Fisheries, Matsya Bhavan, Santhinagar, Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. And others. …Respondents The court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Writ Petition No.15809 of 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 04.08.2009. Counter affidavit is filed. Devarakonda Srinivasa Rao – writ petitioner filed the present writ petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting general body election to the 4th respondent society as contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) and Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to conduct general body election from where it is stopped and pass suitable orders. It is stated that in fact, as per the election notification dated 13.06.2009, election was scheduled to be conducted on 24.06.2009. In the meanwhile, on 23.06.20096, the 3rd respondent suddenly postponed the election indefinitely and reasons for the postponement of election are best known to him. It is alleged that the said action of the 3rd respondent in postponing the general body election of the 4th respondent society as arbitrary, illegal and abuse of the power vested with the 3rd respondent. The said notice of postponement of general body election had been placed before this Court. Sever other facts have also been narrated to the effect that the petitioner eak out his livelihood by fishing, which is a seasonal business and he is one of the members of the 4th respondent society. Writ Petition No.12213 of 2009 has also been referred to in the affidavit. The details, which are narrated in Paragraph Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, need not be dealt with in an elaborate sense. The said details may not be necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the 3rd respondent was appointed as Person-In-Charge, Rajolu Tribal Fishermen Cooperative Society as per the proceedings No.1061/A/2008, dated 20.02.2009 of the Deputy Director of fisheries, Guntur. It is also stated that as per the list received by him from Fisheries Development Officer, Repalle, he had convened general body meeting of the society on 13.03.2009 at the Gram Panchayat Office, Rajolu with prior intimation to all the 34 listed out individuals and on 13.03.2009, in the meeting, out of 29 persons who attended the meeting, 12 members raised their voice against illegal admission of 10 individuals into the Fishermen Cooperative Society basing on resolution dated 17.08.2007, which, as per their version, is not signed and accepted by them and their signatures are fake. It is further stated that the members gave a representation to 2nd respondent requesting to go for verification of records of the Society and do justice regarding admission of 10 individuals into the society and the meeting ended with uproar. It is also stated that the existing 25 members of the society formed into two rival groups and the members disputed among themselves on the issue of illegal admission of 10 new individuals into the society. Further, it is stated that the members quarrelled and caused disturbed atmosphere on 13.06.2009 - the date on which the objections have to be raised at Gram Panchayat Office, Rajolu and the police personnel could not even control the mob. It is stated that the Election Notification and the list of the members displayed was torn off by the mob and hence, as Election Officer, the 3rd respondent found it very difficult to conduct elections in the disturbed atmosphere. It is further stated that the 4th respondent society was registered under the Societies Act with Registration No. 236 and the society used to take tanks, canals and drains on lease from Gram Panchayat. It is stated that it is true that this Court dismissed writ petition No.12213 of 2009 praying for stay of general body election scheduled to be conducted on 24.06.2009, and it is also true that the 25 eligible members list was exhibited soon after verification of the F.C.S. records. Further it is stated that in reply to Para 5 of the affidavit, the members of the society are residents of the surrounding villages pertaining to Rajolu Gram Panchayat as per the area of operation of the society byelaws. It is also stated that on 13.06.2009 - the day of raising objections, the group led by one Garika Kotaiah came out in fully drunken state and created a very disturbed and unruly atmosphere in the Gram Panchayat Office and tore out the election notification and members list and the police personnel could not control the situation. So, virtually, specific stand taken by the 3rd respondent in the counter affidavit filed by him is to the effect that because of such circumstances, the election could not be conducted. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 22-C of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (‘the Rules’, for brevity) and the said rule reads as under. 22–C. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government or the Election authority may direct the postponement of elections under one or more of the following circumstances: - (i) Break down of law and order affecting the peaceful and lawful conduct of elections. (ii) Any natural calamity that prevents the conduct of elections particularly voters from participation in the election. (iii) Where there is a reasonable apprehension that voters will not be allowed to vote frankly and freely. (b) The postponement shall be done only by issue of an order, which shall specify the grounds of postponement. After such postponement the election process shall be recommended when the conditions become conducive for recommencing of election, by issue of an order by the Authority that has postponed the elections. The process will re-commence from the stage at which it was obstructed or interrupted. The postponement of elections in one or more of such circumstances had been specified under Rule 22-C(1) and 22-C(b) of the Rule. It is needless to say that the 3rd respondent is bound to conduct elections in accordance with law. The 3rd respondent is expected to take necessary protection also in this regard. As the averment of the 3rd respondent being specific, such protection may be necessary for further conducting of elections in a peaceful manner. In the light of these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to further proceed with the conduct of elections in accordance with law, as early as possible. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (P.S.NARAYANA, J) October 27, 2009 Bvv