HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.16584 of 2010 Date: September 3, 2010 Between: D. Anjamma, W/o. Pitchaiah, aged 47 years, R/o.Vrumadla village, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District, and 27 others … Petitioners And The District Cooperative Officer/District Registrar, Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed by the members of the second respondent-Society, which is registered under A.P. Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 (for short, ‘the Act’), seeking directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the first respondent-District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda in not taking steps to conduct elections to the post of Chairperson/President and two posts of Members/Directors of the Society, and further in not disqualifying the erstwhile Board of Directors, as contemplated under the Act, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the first respondent to conduct elections to the said posts. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that there about 56 eligible members to vote, in the second respondent-Society and as per byelaw No.19 of the Registered Byelaws of the Society, elections to the posts of President and Directors have to be held in the month of June, every year. It is stated that elections were held in the month of June, 2009 and in the said elections one Sri Gutta Jitendar Reddy was elected as President of the Society and his term expired in the month of June, 2010. It is further stated that due to expiry of the term of the two Directors of the Managing Committee, two posts of Directors fell vacant; hence, as per byelaw No.19 of the Registered Byelaws of the Society, elections were to be held to the posts of President as well as Directors in the month of June, 2010 but no steps have been taken to conduct elections to the said posts. 3. It is further stated in the affidavit that as elections were not held as per the Byelaws of the Society, the petitioners met the first respondent, who is the Registrar for Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, and requested to take steps to conduct elections; in spite of the same, no steps have been taken to conduct elections to the said posts; as such, the first respondent failed to discharge his statutory obligation, to conduct elections, as contemplated under Section 23(3) of the Act. It is further pleaded that as the Directors of the incumbent Board have failed to discharge their duty, they are to be disqualified under Section 21 (6) of the Act. Precisely, on the ground that elections were not conducted in terms of the Byelaws of the Society and also no steps were taken by the first respondent-Registrar of Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies in terms of Section 23(3) of the Act, the petitioners seek directions to the first respondent to conduct elections to the posts of President and Directors of the Society. 4. The first respondent-District Cooperative Officer/District Registrar, Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies, Nalgonda, has filed counter-affidavit. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that as per the provision under Section 3(b) of the Act, such Societies are democratic organizations and their affairs shall be administered by persons elected or appointed in the manner agreed by the members and accountable to them. Referring to the provision under Section 23(1) and (2) of the Act, it is stated that conduct of elections of the Directors of the Society shall be the responsibility of the incumbent Board and election shall be conducted before the expiry of the term of office of the outgoing Directors in the manner prescribed in the Byelaws. While denying the allegations of the petitioners that in spite of their request, he has not taken steps to conduct elections, it is stated that annual returns of the second respondent-Society were submitted on 23-06-2010 in the office of the District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda along with a copy of the election declaration certificate, certifying that one Sri Gutta Jitendar Reddy was elected as President of the Society for one year, on 17-06-2010, which was issued by the Election Officer. It is further stated that a representation was received by him on 29-06-2010 stating that elections to the Society were conducted in the month of June 2010 by the President, without notifying the same to the Directors, by taking their signatures on the pretext of preparation of milk supply bills. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that on 03- 07-2010, another representation was filed by the Members of the Society stating that elections to the post of President were held on 27-06-2010 and in the said elections one Sri Jala Gopal was elected as President of the Society. Referring to the provision under Section 25(1) and (2) of the Act, it is stated that in response to the representations made by the petitioners, they were advised to approach the competent Cooperative Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute under Section 37(2) of the Act. At the end, pleading that, with regard to conduct of elections, there is no role played by the first respondent; as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ petition, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. A separate counter affidavit is filed by Sri G. Jitendar Reddy, President of the second respondent-Society. In the counter affidavit, while generally denying various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that he was elected as President of the Society in the elections held in June 2009 and he denied the allegation of the petitioners that no election has been conducted as per the Byelaws of the Society in the month of June, 2010. It is stated that prior to the expiry of his term as President, to fill up two posts of Directors who retired by rotation, elections were conducted in the month of June 2010 and two Directors were unanimously elected. It is further stated that, election to the post of President was also conducted on 17-06-2010 and again he was unanimously elected as President and due communication thereof was also sent to the first respondent on 22-06-2010, along with the annual report and returns. Reference is made to the annexures, wherein extract of the minutes book of the elections held on 17-06-2010 was made and also certification by the Election Officer declaring him as President. It is further stated that after elections were held, as the illegal demands made by the Members of the Managing Committee were refused by him, they approached the first respondent and made a false representation. It is finally pleaded that as much as elections have already been conducted, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought by them. 6. An implead-party petition is filed by five Members of the Scoeity. One Sri V. Pratap Reddy has filed affidavit in support of the said petition. In the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is stated that no elections were conducted to elect President or Directors of the Society on 17-06-2010, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent. It is stated that their signatures were obtained by Sri G. Jitendar Reddy and the paid-secretary stating that the same are required for the purpose of milk bills. Further, in the affidavit, it is categorically stated that he was not elected as Director in the elections held on 17- 06-2010. 7. On behalf of the petitioners, a reply-affidavit is filed. In the said affidavit, it is stated that Sri G. Jitendar Reddy, who has filed affidavit on behalf of the second respondent-Society, is not competent to represent the Society, as he was not elected as the President of the Society in the month of June 2010. While disputing the allegation of Sri G. Jitendar Reddy in the counter-affidavit, filed by him on behalf of the second respondent-Society, that elections were held to two vacant posts of Directors on 17-06-2010 and President of the Society, it is stated he manipulated the records and obtained their signatures on blank papers by stating that the same are required for preparation of milk bills and he made use of the said signatures for creating false record, for his election. While referring to byelaw No.18.5 of the Byelaws of the Society, it is stated that as per the said Byelaw, elections to the post of Director have to be held in the Annual General Body Meeting to be held in the month of June, and no General Body Meeting is convened for the purpose of elections. Reference is made to the affidavit filed by the implead petitioners and it is stated that Sri V. Pratap Reddy who is alleged to have been re-elected as Director has also stated in the affidavit that there were no elections to that effect on 17-06-2010. 8. On behalf of the second respondent, Sri G. Jitendar Reddy, has filed a rejoinder supported by an affidavit. In the affidavit filed in support of the rejoinder, it is stated that as per the Byelaws of the Society; as is done every year, the Board of Directors met at the meeting convened on 02-05-2010 for the purpose of taking appropriate steps for finalization of voters’ list and further directed re-convening of the Board of Directors meeting on 31-05-2010 for taking further steps for conducting elections to the posts of two retired Directors. It is stated that on 31-05-2010, meeting of the Board of Directors was once again held and attended by all the Directors wherein it was resolved to issue notice on 01-06-2010 for convening the General Body Meeting on 17-06-2010 and one Sri Gutta Damodar Reddy was nominated as the Election Officer; thereafter, notice was put up in the office of the Society on 01-06-2010 denoting that General Body Meeting of the Society would be held on 17-06-2010 and the said information was also published by way of tom-tom. Further, it is stated that, in the meeting held on 17-06- 2010 of the General Body for electing two members who retired by rotation, nearly 40 out of 56 members met, appended their signatures and made thumb impressions denoting their presence and attendance. It is stated that in the said meeting, two Directors by name Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri Sunkara Shankaraiah, who retired by rotation, were re-elected as Directors and immediately thereafter a separate meeting was conducted to take up election of the President of the Society and in the said meeting, he was elected as President. In the affidavit, further reference is made to the minutes of the meeting in which two Directors were re-elected and their tenure was fixed as five years in view of their re-election. In the rejoinder, it is further stated that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the election, it is for them to approach to the competent Tribunal, but, they cannot ventilate their grievance in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the present writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Heard Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri R.N. Hemendranath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for the first respondent, Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent-Society and also Sri D. Seshadri Naidu, counsel for respondents 3 to 7, who have been impleaded. 10. It is contended by Sri E. Manohar, learned senior counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, that as per the bye- laws of the second respondent-Society and in view of the provision under Section 23(1) of the Act, it is obligatory on the part of the Managing Committee to hold elections to fill up the two vacant posts of Directors and the President of the Society before the end of June, 2010; as such, representations were filed before the first respondent- Registrar by the petitioners and other members of the Society; in spite of the same, no action has been taken. It is submitted that when elections were not conducted as per the bye-laws of the Society, it is obligatory on the part of the first respondent-Registrar to constitute an ad hoc Board for the purpose of conducting elections; as such the first respondent failed to discharge his statutory obligation as per Section 23(3) of the Act. Learned counsel would contend that elections were not conducted on 17-06-2010 as pleaded by the respondents and even though no elections were held, Sri Gutta Jitendar Reddy, who was the Ex-President of the Society, by obtaining the signatures of the members on the ground that the same are required for the purpose of preparing milk bills, created a manipulated record as if elections were held on 17-06- 2010. It is submitted that no elections were conducted either to the posts of two Directors nor to the post of President on 17-06-2010; as such, it is obligatory on the part of the first respondent-Registrar to constitute an ad hoc Board for the purpose of conducting elections to fill up the posts of two Directors. 11. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, appearing for the first respondent-Registrar, would submit that the societies registered under the Act are democratic organizations within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act and as per Section 23 (1) and (2) of the Act, it is the responsibility of the incumbent Board to conduct elections. He further submits that annual returns of the second respondent-Society were submitted on 23- 06-2010 in the office of the District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda along with a copy of the Declaration Certificate certifying that one Sri G. Jitendar Reddy was elected as the President for one year in the elections held on 17-06- 2010 and the same was issued by the Election Officer. It is submitted that some of the members of the Society submitted representations on 29-06-2010 and 03-07-2010 questioning the manner in which elections were held on 17-06-2010, but they were advised to approach the competent Cooperative Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute under Section 37(2) of the Act. 12. It is submitted by Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the second respondent- Society, that as much as elections were already held on 17-06-2010 to fill up two posts of Directors and subsequently there was election to the post of President, in which the present President was elected, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief as prayed or in the writ petition, which is filed seeking directions to the first respondent to conduct elections to the Managing Committee of the second respondent-Society. It is further submitted that as per the bye-laws, Board of Directors of the Society convened meeting on 02-05-2010 for the purpose of taking appropriate steps for finalization of voters’ list and further, meeting was held on 31-05-2010 for taking steps for conduct of elections to two posts of retired Directors. On 31-05-2010, there was a meeting of Board of Directors, which was attended by all the Directors wherein it was resolved to issue notice of election on 01-06-2010 for convening General Body on 17-06-2010. It is submitted that to hold elections, it was resolved to nominate Election Officer Sri G. Damodar Reddy and thereafter notice was published on 01-06-2010 in the office of the Society denoting that the General Body Meeting of the Society would be held on 17-06-2010. It is further submitted that on 17-06-2010, General Body Meeting was conducted and two Directors who were to retire by rotation, namely Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri Sunkara Shankaraiah were re-elected as Directors. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that, thereafter, a separate meeting of Board of Directors was conducted on the same day, in which the present President was elected as President of the Society. It is submitted that the very representation filed by the members of the Society, including Sri V. Pratap Reddy, who was one of the Directors re-elected, clearly demonstrates that elections were held; as such the petitioners cannot maintain this writ petition and if there is any dispute with regard to the elections held on 17-06- 2010, it is for the aggrieved party to raise an election dispute before the competent Cooperative Tribunal under Section 37(2) of the Act. 13. Sri D. Seshadari Naidu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 3 to 7, who have been impleaded, would submit that there was no election held either for the posts of Directors or the President on 17-06- 2010. He would submit that, in the counter-affidavit, no date of election of the members was given and that by itself gives rise to suspicion that no elections were held on 17-06-2010, as pleaded. It is submitted hat Sri G. Jitendar Reddy, having obtained the signatures of the authorized members of the Society on the ground that the same are required for preparing milk bills, has concocted a record as if elections were held on 17-06-2010. 14. Before I deal with the respective contentions and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I refer briefly to the objects and salient features of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1955. The said Act is enacted in view of the changed perception in the cooperative movement and in order to promote self- reliant and autonomous Cooperative Societies and to make the cooperative movement more vibrant in the State. As per the statement of objects and reasons, one of the salient features of such legislation is to enunciate the cooperative principles which primarily place an accent on voluntary, self-financing, autonomous bodies far removed from State control, to make cooperative societies to mobilize their own funds, to provide for the qualifications and disqualifications for membership by the societies to duties and to make cooperative societies responsible to hold elections and to regulate the process thereof. As per Section 3(b) of the Act, cooperative societies registered under the said Act are democratic organizations and their affairs shall be administered by persons elected or appointed in a manner agreed by the members and accountable to them. As per Section 23(1) of the Act, the conduct of election to the post of Directors of a Cooperative Society shall be the responsibility of the incumbent Board of the Society and the election shall be conducted before the expiry of the term of office of the outgoing Directors in the manner specified in the bye- laws. Under Section 23(3) of the Act, the role of the Registrar comes into picture only in the event of not holding elections as per the bye-laws; that too on the request of the members of the Society, not less than 25 members or five percent of the total members of the Society. Section 37 of the Act deals with the provision for settlement of dispute, which arises touching the constitution, management or business of a cooperative society, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Further, under Section 37(2) of the Act, the dispute relating to elections is to be dealt by the Cooperative Tribunal constituted under the Act. 15. As per the byelaws framed by the Society, particularly, byelaw No.18.5, elections are to be held in the month of June every year in the General Body Meeting and it is the function of the Managing Committee to conduct such General Body. As per the said byelaw, the term of newly elected members will be from 1st of July of that year to that of 30th of June of the succeeding year. 16. From the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, in this case, the only question which is required to be considered is whether any elections were held to fill up the posts of two Directors and further for the post of President in the month of June or not. It is the case of the petitioners that the incumbent Board elected for the year 2009-10 did not conduct any elections to fill up the two vacant posts of Directors nor the President. It is submitted that there was no election, electing Sri G. Jitendar Reddy as the President of the Society and he has obtained the signatures of the members of the Society on the ground that the same are required for the purpose of preparing milk bills and using such signatures manipulated the record as if elections were held on 17-06-2010. But, in this case, it is to be noticed, as contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent, that, elections were held on 17- 06-2010, annual returns of the second respondent- Society were submitted on 23-06-2010 in the office of the District Cooperative Officer, Nalgonda, along with a copy of the Election Declaration Certificate certifying that Sri G. Jitendar Reddy was elected as President for one year on 17-06-2010. Thereafter further representations were filed on 29-06-2010 and 03-07-2010 stating that one other person by name Sri Jala Gopal was elected as President of the Society on 27-06-2010. From a perusal of the representations, it is clear that the main complaint of the members was that their signatures were misused for the purpose of elections on 17-06-2010 and there was no election in a democratic way; as such request was made to cancel the said election and to hold re-election. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent has placed on record a set of papers which contain the extracts of the minutes of the meeting of the Society held on 02-05-2010, 21-05-2010, 31-05-2010, 01- 06-2010 and also on 17-06-2010. In the meeting held on 02-05-2010 of the Directors, it was resolved to finalize the voters’ list for the purpose of holding elections, which contain the signatures of the Directors, including that of Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri Sunkara Shankaraiah. So also, in the minutes recorded in the meeting held on 21-05- 2010, there was a resolution to elect the Election Officer for the purpose of conducting elections. Even in the extracts of the said meeting, there are signatures of the Directors. In the extract of the minutes of the meeting held on 31-05-2010, there is a resolution by the Board of Directors to hold General Body Meeting on 17-06-2010, for the purpose of conducting elections, by appointing an Election Officer. Even the said minutes contain the signatures of the Directors, including that of Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri Sunkara Shankaraiah. Further, the minutes recorded in the meeting held on 17-06-2010, clearly indicates that Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri Sunkara Shankaraiah are re-elected as Directors/Members. Even the said minutes contain the signatures of the Directors, including that of Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri Sunkara Shankaraiah. A copy of the minutes of election of President is also filed, which is dated 17-06-2010. It also contains the signatures of the Directors. Yet another important document is filed, which is the extract of the minutes of the meeting dated 17-06-2010, wherein the election of the Directors is mentioned. In the said minutes, at Sl.Nos.9 and 10, names of Sri V. Pratap Reddy and Sri Sunkara Shankaraiah were shown with their signatures, which are not in dispute, showing their tenure as five years. The very mentioning of their tenure as five years in the minutes of the meeting recorded on 17-06-2010 would clearly indicate the fact that the said persons are re-elected in the elections held on 17-06-2010 for the posts of two Directors. But, very surprisingly, Sri V. Pratap Reddy, whose name is shown in the said minutes, showing his tenure as five years, with his signature, in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition, states that there was no election for the posts of two Directors. To substantiate the contention of the second respondent that there was election to the posts of two Directors on 17-06-2010 and thereafter President was also elected, there is sufficient material on record and such fact is borne out from the minutes of the meeting held on 17-06-2010. Had Sri