IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION Nos.1138, 1375, 1523, 1552,2145 And 2675 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No.1138 of 2008 Between: 1 Damarla Seetha Ramaiah S/o.Nageswara Rao R/o. Padmanabhunipeta, Epurupalem Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 D. Narayana Murthy S/o.Nageswara Rao R/o. Padmanabhunipeta, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat , Hyderabad. 2 Director of Handlooms Textiles and Development Commissioner for Apparel Export Parks, A.P. BRK Bhavan,Hyderabad. 3 District Collector/District Election Authority Prakasam District, Ongole. 4 Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Prakasam District, Ongole. 5 Election Officer, Srivenkateswara Handloom Weavers' Cooperative Society Limited, J (W) 117, Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking steps to notify the members regarding increase of member ship from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 50/- in time as per rules as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the authorities to conduct elections any time only after 23-2-2008 after declaring that the petitioners and similarly placed persons who have already paid the money through Demand Draft are eligible to become voters in the ensuing elections to elect the Executive Body of Sri Venkateswara Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited J (W) 117 Epurupalem, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District after setting aside the proceedings dt. 31-12-2008 of respondent No.2. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION WRIT PETITION No: 1375 of 2008 Between: 1 B.Pamulu, S/o Basaviah, R/o Mukkavaritota, Kanagala, Cherukupally Mandal, Guntur District. 2 K.Sambasiva Rao, S/o Bhavanasi, Ramamanidaram Bazar, Kanagala, Cherukupally Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Handlooms, Textiles and Development Commissioner for Apparel Export Parks, A.P.BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector/District Election Authority, Guntur District, Guntur. 4 Assistant Director, handlooms and Textiles, Guntur District, Guntur. 5 Sri Lakshmi Weavers Cooperative Production and Sale Society Limited, GR W 53, Kanagala, Cherukupally Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking steps to notify the members regarding increase/change of share capital to Rs.50/- in time and preparing voters list without letting benefits given by GO Ms.No.5 dated 11-01-2008 and proceedings of R2 dated 3-1-2008 come to genuine weavers as illegal and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the authorities to conduct elections any time after 24-02-2008 after declaring that the petitioners and similarly placed persons, who have already paid the money entitled for the benefit of GO Ms.No.5 dtd.11-5-2008 and proceedings of R2 dt.3-1-2008 are eligible to become voters in the ensuing elections to elect the Executive Body of Sri Lakshmi Weavers Cooperative Production and Sale Society Limited, GRW 53, Kanagala, Cherukupally Mandal, Guntur District and pass such order or further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION WRIT PETITION No: 1523 of 2008 Between: 1 Gunda Suba Rao, S/o.Kondaiah, R/o.Behind Old Cinema Hall, Chimakurti, Prakasam Dist 2 Bandi Venkateswarlu, S/o.Venkatanarsiah, R/o.Turupupalem, Chimakurti,Prakasam Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt.of A.P, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Director of Handlooms Textiles and Development Commissioner for Apparel Exports Parks,A.P BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad 3 Dist Collector/Dist Election Authority, Prakasam Dist, Ongole 4 Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Prakasam Dist, Ongole 5 Election Officer, Chimakurti Handloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sale Society, N.738, Chimakurti, Prakasam Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking steps to notify the members regarding increase/change of Share capital to Rs.50/- in time and preparing voters list without letting benefits given by GO Ms No.5 dt.11-1-2008 and proceedings of R2 dt. 3-1-2008 come to genuine weavers as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the authorities to conduct elections any time after 1-3-2008 after declaring that the petitioners and similarly placed persons who will be given opportunity to pay the money of Rs. 50/- and entitled for the benefit of Go Ms.No.5 dtd 11-1-2008 and proceedings of R2 dtd 3-1-2008 are eligible to become voters in the ensuring elections to elect the executive Body of Chimakurthi Handloom Weavers Cooperative Production and Sale Society,N.738 Chimakurti, Prakasam District. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION WRIT PETITION No: 1552 of 2008 Between: 1 Kandula Nageswara Rao, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, R/o.Kondamanjuluru(V) J.Ponguluru(M) Prakasam Dist 2 Prasada Ramulu, S/o.Narsimham R/o.Valaparla(V) Martur (M) Prakasam Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt. of A.P, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Director of Handlooms Textiles and Development Commissioner for Apparel Exports Parks, A.P BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad 3 Dist Collector/Dist Election Authority, Prakasam Dist Ongole 4 Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Prakasam Dist Ongole 5 Veeranjaneya Weavers Co-Op Production and Sales Society Ltd, J.W.No.97, Valaparla,Martur(M), Prakasam Dist .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking steps to notify the members regarding increase change of share capital to Rs 50/- in time and preparing voters list without letting benefits given by G.O.Ms.No. 5 dt.11-1-2008 and proceedings of R2 dtd 3-1-2008 come to genuine weavers as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the authorities to conduct elections any time after 1-3-2008 after declaring that the petitioners and similarly placed persons who will be given opportunity to pay the money of Rs 50/- and entitled for the benefit of Go Ms.No.5 dtd 11-1-2008 and proceedings of R2 dtd 3-1-2008 are eligible to become voters in the ensuring elections to elect the executive Body of 5th respondent. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION WRIT PETITION No.2145 of 2008 Between: 1 Panchumarthy China Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Sri China Venkateswarlu, 2 Vangara Venkateswar Rao, S/o Sri Sreeranganayakulu, Both residents of Cherukupally, Cherukupally Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Handlooms Textiles and Development Commissioner for Apparel Export Parks, A.P., BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 District Collector/District Election Authority, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 Assistant Director, Handlooms and Textiles, Guntur, Guntur District. 5 Election Officer, Arumbaka Society, Cherukupally, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking steps to notify the members regarding increase of membership fee from Rs.30/- to Rs.50/- in time as per rules as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the authorities to conduct elections any time only after 24-02-2008 after declaring that the petitioners and similarly placed persons are eligible to become voters in the ensuing elections to elect the Executive Body of Arumbaka Society, Cherukupally, Guntur District after setting aside the proceedings dated 31-12-2007 of the 2nd respondent and pass such other appropriate orders as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION WRIT PETITION No.2675 of 2008 Between: Pappu Ramulu S/o. P. Chinnaiah, R/o. Kothapeta village, Rambelli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director Hand Looms, Textiles & Development, Commissioner for APPAREL, Exports Parks, A.P. B.R.K. Bhavan, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector and Election Authority, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Assistant Director, Hand Looms and Textiles, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. 5 Brugu Maharshi Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd., Kothapeta Village, Rambelli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, rep. by its President. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not taking steps to notify the members regarding increase/change of share capital to Rs. 50/- in time and preparing voters list without letting benefits given by G.O.Ms.No.5 dt.11-1-2008 and proceedings of respondent No.2 dt.3-1-2008 come to genuine weavers as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the authorities to conduct elections any time after 24-2-2008 after declaring that the petitioner and similarly placed persons, who have already paid the money and entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.5 dt.11-1-2008 and proceedings of respondent No.2 dt.3-1-2008 are eligible to become voters in the ensuing elections to Elect the Executive Body of Brugu Maharshi Weavers Cooperative Production and Sales Society Ltd., Kothapeta Village, Rambelli Mandal, Visakahapatnam District. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S. K.RAJITHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION This Court made the following: COMON ORDER: As the point involved in all these writ petitions is same, these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. Petitioners are stated to be members of the weavers cooperative societies. The District Election Authority issued orders notifying that the election to the Managing Committee of the society would be conducted in February 2008. Later, voters lists were prepared and were also published. Petitioners state that though there are many members, in the list prepared, the names of many members were deleted without issuing any show cause notice to the members whose names were deleted from the list. On enquiry they came to know that the second respondent issued proceedings dated 31.12.2007 indicating tentative poll schedule, wherein it is specified that the share capital is Rs.50/-. Petitioners further state that without intimating them, the share capital was increased and that they could not pay the share capital of Rs.50/- in the month of December, 2007, as they came to know about the increase only in the month of January 2008. Thereafter, the petitioners stated to have approached the authorities questioning the said action, but in vain. Petitioners further state that nobody has any authority to remove the members without proper enquiry. Hence they filed these writ petitions assailing the action of the respondents in not including their names in the electoral rolls and depriving them of becoming voters in the elections to be conducted and also from contesting in the said elections. Counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the writ petitions and contending that the share capital was reduced from Rs.300/- to Rs.50/- vide Memo No.3882/Tex.1/2004-2, dated 18.02.2004 and this was communicated to all the Assistant Directors in the State and the Assistant Directors in turn intimated the same to all the societies vide endorsement dated 08.10.2004. Therefore, the respondents never increased the share capital without intimation to the petitioners. It is also stated that only those who have paid the share capital of Rs.50/- alone are entitled to participate in the ensuing elections. Provisional lists were published and the objections were called from members and thereafter, final list of voters to be participated in the elections was issued and the election programme was also notified. It is concluded that knowing pretty well about the share capital, petitioners filed these writ petitions to stall the elections to the committees after commencement of election programme. Therefore, they sought to dismiss the writ petitions. Petitioners contend that they are the members of the Societies and the respondents resorted to remove them from the list high-handedly without following the procedure prescribed under the Rules and as there is flagrant violation of the Rules, the election notifications are liable to be quashed and the election is liable to be cancelled. On the other hand, respondents contend that the members who have committed default in payment of share capital are not entitled to participate in the election to cast their vote and therefore, the names of the members who have not paid the share capital were removed and the list was finalized. The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules 1964 (‘the Rules’, for brevity) have been brought into existence with effect from 27.07.1964. Rule 21 of the Rules deals with the Constitution of a representative general body. Subsequently, the Rules were amended from time to time. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 130(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.37, Agriculture & Cooperative (Co.op.IV) Department, dated 28.01.2002 making amendment to the Rules and increasing the Share Capital to Rs.300/-. Subsequently, it was reduced to Rs.50/- on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.87 Agricultural and Cooperative (Coop-IV) Department, dated 07.04.2003. The respondents removed the names of the petitioners on the ground that they did not pay the share capital and therefore, they are not eligible to vote. To refute the said contention, petitioners rely upon G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 11.01.2008 where under, the Government granted exemption to the societies from operating provisions of Sections 21(1)(g) and 25(1-A))(d) of the Act for the purpose of ensuing elections of the Primary Weavers Cooperative Societies, and contend that they shall not be deprived of being members. However, the respondents contend that the said Government Order grants permission to the members to vote, but does not waive or exempt them from payment of dues, and being defaulters, petitioners cannot claim such a benefit. This Court is not inclined to deal with the said controversy at this stage. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that these writ petitions are misconceived for the simple reason that the election notifications were issued notifying the election programme and the election process had already been commenced. In this regard, time and again the Apex Court as well as this Court held that when once the election process is begun and the election notification is issued, the same shall not be disturbed unless it is established that it is palpably wrong. In one of the judgments reported by the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari ugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra[1], it was held as under: “the election should not be disturbed unless it is shown to be palpably wrong or to have ceased to be good law as a result of amendment of statute concerned or a subsequent declaration of law.” In the instant case, the contention of the petitioners is that they were not aware of the amount of share capital and without amending the byelaws, the share capital cannot be increased depriving them of being members. As such, they seek to quash the election proceedings on the ground of irregularities. However, this court is not inclined to accept the said contention. May be it is true that some irregularities have been committed in the preparation of the voters list, but it does not mean that for the said irregularity, the petitioners can approach this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the important functions which the Legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to the time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of election should be postponed till the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted, and that if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the laws by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the election, and that even those irregularities must be brought before the special Tribunal by means of an election petition and shall not be made subject of dispute before any court while the election is in progress. Therefore, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the election, they can approach the Election Tribunal seeking redressal of their grievance. At this stage they cannot seek to stall the election process. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merits in these writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Election Tribunal as and when it is required. As the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that in view of the interim stay granted by this Court, the election could not take place, it is directed that the respondent-Election Officer concerned, shall proceed further pursuant to the election notifications issued for the conduct of elections to the Cooperative Societies. With the above observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 18th April 2008. sh [1] (2001)8 SCC 509