THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 29488 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the order of Respondent No.5-Assistant Director of Fisheries, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, vide Ref.No.716/A2/2010, dated 23.10.2011, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Provisions of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘APCS Act’) and Rules 22 and 22-C of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short, (‘APCS Rules’). 2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition may be stated as follows: The petitioners are Ex-President and Member respectively of a Fishermen Cooperative Society situated at Gadarada Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, which was registered in the year 1979 under APCS Act. The said Society is existing with 312 members. The managing committee of the Society consists of nine Directors including the President. The Committee of the society has been constituted by duly elected members from time to time. The term of the managing committee ended by 15.11.2010. Respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Fisheries, Kakinada appointed a Part time person in-charge committee for a period of six months with effect from 17.11.2010, and since then, the committee looked after the affairs of the Society till 16.5.2011. While Part time person in charge Committee was looking after the affairs of the Society, the petitioners along with some other members made representation to respondent No.5 to conduct elections of the society. Respondent No.4 sought permission of the Government for extension of period of Part time person in charge. Respondent No.1 has issued proceedings, dated 24.08.2011 informing the Commissioner that appointment of Part time person in charge can be done only, if it is not possible to conduct elections on the grounds mentioned in APSC Act and APCS Rules. Thereafter, as per the proceedings, dated 24.08.2011 issued by respondent No.1, instructed respondent No.4 - Deputy Director of Fisheries to send remarks through its Memo, dated 05.09.2011. By proceedings, dated 10.10.2011, issued by respondent No.3, an Election Officer was appointed and Election Schedule was prepared. As per the schedule, the elections are scheduled on 28.11.2011. Thereupon, the Election Officer addressed a letter, dated 19.10.2011 stating that during his personal enquiry it was understood that there are two groups among the Society members and chronic disputes from the fast few months. Thereafter, Respondent No.5 issued proceedings, dated 23.10.2011, postponing the elections scheduled on 28.11.2011. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the authority who initiated the impugned proceedings, vide Ref.No.716/A2/2010, dated 23.10.2011, postponing the elections, has no jurisdiction; that it cannot have any right for postponement of the elections temporarily and hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 stated that Respondent No.5 has no power to issue such proceedings in view of Rule 22-C of the APCS Rules. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The term of Managing Committee of Fishermen Cooperative Society ended by 15.11.2010. Thereafter, a part time person in-charge committee was appointed for a period of six months with effect from 17.11.2010 and the Committee looked after the affairs of the society till 16.05.2011. While the temporary committee is functioning, the members of the Society made representation to conduct elections to the society. The Deputy Director of Fisheries sought permission from the Government for extension of Part time person in-charge committee, whereunder, it was stated that appointment of Part time person in- charge can be done only, if it is not possible to conduct elections on the grounds mentioned in APCS Act and APCS Rules. While the matter stood thus, vide proceedings, dated 10.10.2011, an Election Officer was appointed under Rule 22 of APCS Act and as Election Schedule was prepared. Thereupon the Election Officer addressed a letter, dated 19.10.2011 stating that during his personal enquiry it was understood that there are two groups among the society members and severe disputes exist between them for the fast few months likely to affect the Law and Order problem in the Village. 6. Under Rule 22-C of the APCS Rules, the Government or Election Authority may direct 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 reasonable apprehension that voters will not be allowed to vote frankly and freely. Under Clause (b) of Rule 22-C of APCS Rules, 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 recommenced when the conditions become conducive for recommending the election by issue of an order by the Authority that has postponed the elections. 7. As per Rule 22 of APCS Rules, the District Collector is the competent authority. The District Collector cannot delegate the powers to any subordinates with regard to postponement of the elections. It is not in dispute before this Court that the District Collector has issued the Election Notification. The impugned proceedings are set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 – District Collector to conduct elections to the Society, if the case does not attract any one of the clauses under Rule 22-C of APCS Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J NOVEMBER 04, 2011 YVL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 29488 OF 2011 Between: Sri Degapati John and another …PETITIONERS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following :