IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25617 of 2008 Between: Moka Suryanarayana S/o. Moka ramayya R/o. Kothota, Mogaltur Mandal, Mutyalapalli Post, West Godavari Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector (Co-operative Wing) West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 Fisheries Development Officer cum Election Officer Ganapavaram West Godavari District. 3 The Kothota Merian Fisheries Co-operative Society Rep. by its Person Incharge Muthyalapalli Post, Mogaltur Mandal, West Godavari District. 4 The Deputy Director Fisheries Eluru. 5 Asst. Director of Fisheries Bhimavaram West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of respondents in proposing to conduct the elections on 25-11-2008 to the 3rd respondent society as per the election notification in Rc.No. 104/2008 dt. 15-11-2008 by permitting the bogus voters to cast their votes which contrary to Rule 18 of A.P.C.S. Act and G.O.Ms.No.87 dt. 7-4-2003 as illegal, null and void and for a consequential order directing the respondents to conduct elections to the 3rd respondent society excluding the bogus voters dt. 10-11-2008. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 25617 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.17169 of 2008 seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct elections. Respondents are said to have filed a counter affidavit therein stating that they intended to conduct elections in accordance with a particular Government Order. The present writ petition is filed seeking a direction from this Court to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to conduct elections to the third respondent-Society, by election notification dated 15-11-2008, by permitting bogus voters to cast their votes as contrary to Rule 18 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, as notified in G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 07-04-2003. Sri Ch.Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that there are only 19 members of the Society who are eligible to vote and that the respondents had illegally permitted 92 others to participate in the voting process and had, thereby, defeating the very purpose for which the elections were held. The question which arises for consideration is whether the 92 members, who were said to have been permitted to vote, are bogus members or not? The election is scheduled to be held on 25-11-2008. I see no reason to interdict the elections since it is the petitioner who, himself, had approached this Court requesting that the elections be held early. The interim relief sought for in this writ petition is to direct that the elections be held allowing only 19 eligible members to cast their votes. The question whether there are only 19 members and whether the other 92 members are genuine or bogus members can be better examined by the Election Tribunal after the elections are held. Sri Ch.Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, while fairly stating that the rules do provide for a challenge to election by approaching the Tribunal constituted in this regard, would submit that, since the controversy in this writ petition relates only to the question whether it is G.O.Ms.No.87 dated 07-04-2003 or G.O.Ms.No.223 dated 27-06-2005 which apply, the petitioner should not be asked to undergo the ordeal of having to challenge the elections after the ritual is complete. This Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would, ordinarily, not examine disputed questions of fact such as whether the 92 members, who the petitioner claims to be bogus, are genuine or bogus members of the third respondent-Society since there is a remedy available to the petitioner, after the election is held, to challenge the election before a fact finding Tribunal. I see no reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict the elections or to direct that the elections be held in a particular manner. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from availing the remedies available to him under the Act or the Rules after the elections are held. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:24-11-2008 usd