THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23730 of 2010 Oral order: The petitioner, who claims to be a member of respondent No.5, namely Inturu Yerukala Fishermen Co-operative Society, filed the present writ petition to declare the telegram proceedings dated 09.09.2010, issued by respondent No.1, namely the Special Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, postponing the elections of respondent No.5-Society as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.4, namely the Fisheries Development Officer and Election Officer, to re-commence the election process where it was stopped. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though respondent No.1 in exercise of the power under Rule 22-C of the A.P. Co-operative Society Rules, 1964 by the impugned telegram proceedings dated 08.09.2010, postponed the elections to respondent No.5-Society, which are scheduled to be held on 09.09.2010, but no reason whatsoever is assigned for such postponement. In the absence of any reason assigned by respondent No.1 for postponing the elections to respondent No.5-Society, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned telegram proceedings, issued by respondent No.1, postponing the elections to respondent No.5- Society cannot be sustained and prayed that the same be set aside and the writ petition be allowed. The learned Government Pleaders for Fisheries and Co-operation appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that since there is violation of the provisions of Section 15 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, respondent No.1 in exercise of the power under Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 postponed the elections to respondent No.5-Society, by issuing G.O. Rt. No. 453, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (F.II) Department, dated 15.09.2010, an no interference is called for therewith. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleaders for Fisheries and Co-operation for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appeared for respondent No.5-Society. To consider whether respondent No.1 is justified in postponing the elections to respondent No.5-Society, it would be appropriate if a reference is made to Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, which reads as follows: 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) Breakdown 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. The postponement shall be done only be 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 recommence from the stage at which it was obstructed or interrupted. From the above, it is clear that elections to a Society can be postponed only under three circumstances, namely (i) when there is breakdown of law and order affecting the peaceful conduct of elections, (ii) any natural calamity occurred that prevents the voters from participating in the elections and (iii) when there is apprehension that there is reasonable apprehension that voters will not be allowed to vote frankly and freely. Though the impugned telegram proceedings dated 09.09.2010 issued by respondent No.1 under Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Rules, 1964, postponing the elections to respondent No.5-Society does not specify any reason for postponing the elections, but a perusal of G.O. Ms. No. 453, dated 15.09.2010 issued by respondent No.1 under Rule 22-C(1) of the Rules, postponing the elections to respondent No.5-Society, would disclose that elections to respondent No.5-Society have been postponed on the ground that one Sri. T. Ramesh and others have represented to the Government to stay the elections on the ground of violation of provisions of Section 15 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies, Act, 1964 and non-admission of Inturu villagers, who were having membership in Amarthaluru FCS before the newly formed Inturu FCS. Evidently, the ground on which respondent No.1 issued the impugned G.O., postponing the elections to respondent No.5-Society, is not a ground contemplated under Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964. I n M.A.R.V.S. Sai Baba v. Commissioner and Registrar of Co-operative Societies[1], it was held by this Court that under Rule 22 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, the Government or its authorities cannot postpone the poll for reasons other than stated in Rule 22 i.e. rioting or any other sufficient cause, and that irregularities in the voters list, after the commencement of election process, is not one among such sufficient causes, for postponement of elections. In Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra[2], the apex Court held that illegality in the preparation of electoral rolls, is not a ground to stay/postpone the elections and such ground can only be raised in election petition. Further in M. Ramachandra Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[3], this Court, having analyzed the power of the Government and the Election Officer under Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 and Section 131 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 held as under: Though there can be no dispute about the power conferred on the Government or the Election Authority under Rule 22-C to postpone the elections, it is relevant to note that such postponement shall be only under any of the grounds enumerated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22-C. Hence, the power conferred on the Government under Section 131 of the Act to give directions cannot be extended to interdict the election process on the grounds other than that are mentioned under Rule 22-C. There is no other provision under the Act which provides for postponement of elections. Therefore, postponement of elections merely on the basis of certain complaints received from the members of the society with regard to preparation of voters lists or alleged irregularities in granting of membership, being not permissible under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, cannot be ordered even in exercise of power under Section 131 of the Act. As noted above, the impugned telegram dated 09.09.2010 issued by respondent No.1 under Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Rules, 1964 does not assign any reason for postponement of elections to respondent No.5-Society. Even though G.O. Ms. No. 453, dated 15.09.2010, issued by respondent No.1 under Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 does specify the reason for postponement of elections to respondent No.5- Society, but the ground so specified, to postpone the elections, not being a ground contemplated under Rule 22-C(1) of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Rules, 1964, the impugned telegram proceedings dated 09.09.2010 and the impugned G.O. Ms. No. 453, dated 15.09.2010, cannot be sustained, and they are accordingly set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.4 is directed to recommence the election process from the stage where it was interrupted/obstructed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 28th September, 2010. KSR [1] 1999 (2) ALD 319 [2] AIR 2001 SC 3982 [3] 2006 (2) ALD 296