THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26901 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners are Members of the Fishermen Industrial Cooperative Society, Maqdoompur, Chennaraopet Mandal, Warnagal District, the 3rd respondent. The elections to the Managing Committee of the Society became due in the year 2009. The District Collector appointed an Election Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, to conduct the elections. As required under the relevant rules, the 2nd respondent published a draft voters’ list on 20.11.2009 and invited objections. The draft voters’ list contained the names of 294 members. 17 members of the Society, hailing from Maqdoompur, are said to have raised an objection to the effect that quite large number of members did not pay the enhanced subscription. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent deleted the names of 157 members, including the petitioners and published a final voters’ list on 05.12.2009. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the same. It is urged that though Rule 18 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) was amended enhancing the minimum subscription to Rs.300/-, proviso thereof empowered the Commissioner to stipulate any lesser amount and that in exercise thereof, the Commissioner of Fisheries passed an order, dated 04.08.2003, directing that the subscription of schedule capital for Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society shall be Rs.50/- only. The petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent proceeded, as though the minimum subscription must be Rs.300/-, and that no notice was issued to the members, before they were deleted from the voters’ list. A detailed counter-affidavit, accompanied by voluminous record, is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the minimum subscription was taken as Rs.50/- and it is only after thorough scrutiny of the records that the names of 157 persons were deleted, on finding that they did not pay the minimum subscription. Heard Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries. Rule 22 of the Rules prescribes the procedure to be followed by an Election Officer, once he is appointed by the Election Authority to conduct the elections to the Managing Committee of a Society. Preparation of the voters’ list is an initial step to be taken by an Election Officer. He is required to invite objections and publish a final voter’s list, after taking the same into account. The objections that may be received vis-à-vis the voters’ list may comprise those for inclusion of the names that are omitted and for deletion of the names from the draft list. In the former category of objections, the Election Officer does not have to issue notice to anyone and he can include the names, once he is satisfied that the objector is an eligible voter. Where, however, the objection is as to the exclusion of the name of a particular individual, and a prayer is made for deletion thereof, it is essential that the affected person is to put on notice. The Election Officer cannot assume to himself any facts and delete the name of a voter, unilaterally. In the instant case, on a representation made by some of the members stating that the enhanced share capital was not paid by some of the members, the Election Officer proceeded to delete names of 157 members, including those of petitioners from the voters list. No effort was made to ascertain the views of the affected persons. Further, there is any amount of uncertainty as to the facts that were taken into account, by the 2nd respondent for deletion of the names. Though it is stated in the counter-affidavit that Rs.50/- was taken as the minimum subscription, after enhancement, the record discloses that it was taken as Rs.300/-, as provided under the Rules. Had the notice been given to the affected parties, they would have been in a position to put forward their evidence, be it, as regards the amount that is required to be paid as minimum subscription, or the factum of payment thereof. A unilateral order passed by the election officer, excluding almost half of the members of the society from the voters’ list, cannot be sustained in law. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the action of the 2nd respondent in deleting the names of 157 members, including those of the petitioners, from the voters’ list, is set aside. He is directed to examine the matter afresh and issue notice to the affected parties, before the name of any voter is deleted from the list, and thereafter, take further steps to conduct the elections. Since the elections were already delayed on account of the orders of stay, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall complete the election process within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.22.04.2010. GJ