HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12617 of 2010 4th June 2010 Between: Chinta Mekala Chandrayudu … PETITIONER(S) and The District Collector/District Election Authority, Ananthapur District and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12617 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Fisheries. At their request the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is the President of the Primary Fisheries Cooperative Society, Dorigallu Village, Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapur District, having been elected as such in the year 2007. It is his case that there are 88 recognized primary fishermen cooperative societies in Ananthapur District; the election officer published a final voters list for 53 primary fishermen cooperative societies as having been approved for conduct of elections for the District Fisheries Cooperative Society, Ananthapur; and the names of around eight primary Fisheries Co-operative Societies were rejected on certain grounds without giving reasons for non-publishing of the names of the remaining societies in the final voters list. The petitioner would contend that, having approved the transactions of the petitioner’s society and having recognizing the same, the authorities had acted illegally in failing to assign reasons for non-publishing the final voters list by including the name of the petitioner’s society therein. Reference is made to the fact that, on 27.05.2010, an election notification was issued for conduct of the elections to the District Managing Committee of the District Fisheries Cooperative Societies, Ananthapur District, and that, on 25.05.2010, the 4th respondent had published a voters list. It is the petitioner’s case that publishing of the voters list just two days after the election notification, that too without affording an opportunity, was in violation of Rule 22(b)(ii) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules (for short – ‘the Rules’). The petitioner claims to have approached the 4th respondent on 28.05.2010 questioning the non- inclusion of the petitioner’s society in the final voters list. Reference is made by him to the fact that, after a Special Officer was appointed to the District Fisheries Cooperative Societies, Ananthapur, no General Body Meeting was held so far; that the 4th respondent had straightaway published a voters list on 25.05.2010, and had issued the election notification on 27.05.2010 for elections to be held on 05.06.2010 at 2.30 P.M. The petitioner also claims to have approached respondent nos.2 and 3 on 01.06.2010 questioning the illegal act of the 4th respondent. It is his grievance that no action has been taken so far. He seeks a direction from this Court to declare the election notification dated 27.05.2010 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondents not to conduct elections without publishing the voters list including all the Primary Fisheries Cooperative Societies in Ananthapur District. Disputes relating to violation of Rule 22(b)(ii) of the Rules, rendering the consequent election illegal, are matters which can be gone into by the Election Tribunal constituted under Section 61 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short – ‘the Act’). Section 61 (3) of the Act provides that every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election to a committee of a society shall be referred for decision to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, whose decision thereon shall be final. Section 61 (4) of the Act provides that every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election shall be referred under Section 61(3) of the Act only after the date of declaration of the result of such election. It is always open to the petitioners to raise a dispute before the Registrar, under Section 61 of the Act, who is empowered, after the election results declared, to refer such dispute for adjudication by the Election Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated. As Section 61 of the Act provides for an effective remedy for resolution of election disputes, I see no reason to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a writ petition relating to an election dispute. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to raise a dispute under Section 61 of the Act before the Registrar of Co- operative societies questioning the validity of the election, including violation of Rule 22(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ 4th June, 2010 RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J CVRK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12617 of 2010 4th June 2010 CVRK