K. Appa Reddy and Another vs The Election Officer for conducting Elections to the Prakashnagar Co-op. Building Society Ltd. and Others

M.N. Rao, J.—The election notification in respect of election to the Managing Committee of Prakashnagar Co-operative Building Society Limited, Rajahmundry, was issued on 7-5-1995 by the District Collector, East Godavari - third respondent herein. As per the ''notice of election'' issued under Rule 22(4)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules (for short ''the Rules'') the following is the Schedule of the election -

20-5-1995 ... Filing of nominations 21-5-1995 ... Withdrawal and publication of valid nominations 28-5-1995 ... Date of poll.

The appellants herein filed Writ Petition No. 10556 of 1995 challenging the proposed election on three grounds-

(1) that the mandatory requirement of ten days between the date of filing of nomination papers and the date of poll, was not complied with;

(2) that the date of poll was fixed on a Sunday, a public holiday, contrary to the aforesaid Rule; and

(3) that several irregularities were committed in the preparation of voters list in that the names of several dead persons were included and there are also double entries, apart from incomplete addresses.

Interim stay was granted by a learned single Judge, while admitting the writ petition, on 26-5-1995. When the matter came up for final hearing our learned brother Justice Ramesh Madhav Bapat dismissed the writ petition taking the view that under the amended Rule 22(4)(a)(vi) the prescribed time is only seven days unlike the time prescribed in the un-amended Rule and therefore, the notification was in conformity with the present requirement. Having regard to the fact that the election process had already commenced and the contentions raised are devoid of merit, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal was brought.

As regards the contention that the mandatory requirement of ten days time was not given, the learned Counsel for the appellants has conceded that under the present Rule the requirement is only seven days. He has concentrated the argument on the interpretation of Rule 22(4)(a)(vi) of the Rules, which is in the following terms:

"22(4): Election Notification;-

(a) The Election Officer shall issue a notice of election and communicate it by Registered post with Acknowledgment due to the President or the Chief Executive of the Society not less than fourteen days before the, date of poll, containing the following particulars:

.... .... .... .... .... .... (vi) date, place and time between which nomination papers shall be filed and the fees to be paid therefore, in the case of Primary Societies such date being not less than 7 days before the date fixed for election and not being a public holiday."

It is the contention of Mr. M.S.K. Sastry, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, that as the date of poll was fixed on a Sunday, it is violative of the aforesaid Rule. We are not inclined to agree. From a reading of the above Rule, it is clear that the date for receipt of nomination papers and for payment of fees, should not be a public holiday. The words "not being a public holiday" qualify the date for filing nominations and not the date fixed for election. In this view, we are supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Katineni Pullayya Vs. Konarchapalli Weavers'' Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., Konarchapalli Village and Others, .

Coming to the last contention concerning the illegalities allegedly crept in the preparation of voters list, we are not inclined to go into that question since it is open to the writ petitioners - appellants herein to canvass the correctness of the voters list in a properly filed election petition. A Division Bench of this Court in R. Venugopal v. Dt. Collector 1988 (2) ALT 211, dealing with a similar question, held:

"It must be remembered that dispute is not merely as to the admission of members, in which case it would not be a dispute relating to or in connection with the election to the committee; it is a dispute whether they are entitled to participate in the election. Such a dispute can only be raised and determined in an election petition filed under the said Sub-section (Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61)."

For these reasons, the writ appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed at the admission stage.