THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13434 OF 2010 DATED 16TH JUNE, 2010 BETWEEN Shaik Fathima Bee And others … Petitioners and The Govt. of A.P. Department of Co-operation, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13434 OF 2010 O R D E R The petitioners seek consideration of their application dated 09.06.2010 whereby they sought exercise of power by the Government under Rule 22-C of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for brevity, ‘the Rules of 1964’) for postponing the elections to the Managing Committee of Madanapalle Co-operative Town Bank. It is the case of the petitioners that the voters list prepared by the Election Officer pursuant to the Election Notification dated 08.06.2010 has numerous defects as disqualified as well as dead members names have been included. Accordingly, they made a representation on 09.06.2010 to the Government of Andhra Pradesh contending that this was a fit case for postponing of elections by the Government in exercise of its power under Rule 22-C of the Rules of 1964. The grievance of the petitioners presently is that the Government has not passed any orders upon their representation. At the outset, this Court entertained a doubt as to how this writ petition is maintainable in view of the law laid down in CHENDIPUDI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY V/s. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[1] and M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY V/s. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[2]. The learned counsel addressed arguments on this aspect and contended that the aforestated judgments did not posit that the affected members could not represent to the Government with regard to exercise of power under Rule 22-C of the Rules of 1964. He placed reliance on MANCHABOINA GURAVAIAH V/s. DISTRICT COLLECTOR/ELECTION AUTHORITY (FISHERIES), NALGONDA DISTRICT[3]. Rule 22-C reads as follows: “22-C. (1) 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) 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. (b) The 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 recommencing of election, by issue of an order by the Authority that has postponed the elections. The process will re-commence from the stage at which it was obstructed or interrupted.” In CHENDIPUDI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY (Paras 8, 9 & 10) this Court while considering the exercise of power by the Government under Rule 22-C of the Rules of 1964 held that such power could not be invoked on the application or representation filed by the members of the Society. This Court observed that there was no provision under the Rules to give a reasonable opportunity to any person who made a representation to postpone the elections. Accordingly, it was held that such persons have no right to be heard before passing orders under the said Rule. Again in M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY (Para 15) this Court held that the power under Rule 22-C of the 1964 Rules could not be invoked on the basis of complaints received from the members of the Society with regard to preparation of voters list or alleged irregularities in granting of membership as interdiction with the election process could be only on the grounds mentioned in the said rule and no other. In MANCHABOINA GURAVAIAH (Para 15) it was observed that whenever the Government stalls the elections by exercising power under Rule 22-C of the Rules of 1964 the reasons therefor must be specified. There was no consideration therein on whether the members of the Society could seek exercise of power under this Rule on the ground of defects in the voters list. M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY is squarely on the point, wherein this Court held that exercise of power under this Rule was not invocable merely on the ground that complaints were made by the members of the Society with regard to preparation of the voters list. Further, as pointed out in CHENDIPUDI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA REDDY the members of the Society cannot claim any opportunity of being heard in the course of this exercise by the Government or the Election Authority. The petitioners’ representation seeking exercise of power under this Rule is therefore without any legal basis. There can therefore be no direction to the Government or the Election Authority to act upon such representation. It is for the Government or the Election Authority to independently apply their mind in exercise of power under Rule 22-C of the Rules of 1964 and take necessary action if facts so warrant. Such exercise cannot be insisted upon by the members of the Society. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 16TH JUNE, 2010. Note: Issue C.C. tomorrow. B/O PGS / VGSR [1] 2006(1) ALD 191 [2] 2006(2) ALD 296 [3] 2007(5) ALD 220