CHILAKANI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. CHILAKANI RAJAMOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are interconnected raising common questions in relation to the elections held to the office of President and Directors of the Managing Committee of G. Kothapally Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society at G. Kothapally and so they are disposed of by this common order. The area of operation of G. Kothapally PACS in West Godavari District extends to 8 villages. Elections were held on 28-6-87 for the office of President and Directors of the Managing Committee of the Society The petitioner in WP 14377/89 contested for the office of President, the other contestants being respondents 1 and 2 The six petitioners in WP 17303/89 and R-lto R-17 contested for the posts of 1J Directoss. The poll commenced at 8 am on 28-6-87. According to the petitioners the poll went on from 8 am to 4 pm. but according to the respondents the poll was adjourned by the Election Officer at 3-15 pm as a mob of about 3000 people gathered at the Head Office of the Society and complained that many members had not received their identity cards and the mob prevented the Election Officer from discharging his duties. The Election Officer addressed a letter dated 28-6-87 (marked as Ex A-18 by the Election Tribunal) to the District Collector who is the election authority complaining that a mob of about 3000 people prevented him from discharging his duties as Elecfion Officer and as the situation went out of his control he was forced to stop the polling. The District Collector by aj order dated 30-6-87, based on the report of the Election Officer and the clarification issued by the Commissiioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies directed fresh poll. Accordingly the polling took place on 11-7-87 pursuant to a notice issued by the Election Officer on 3-7-87. Two writ petitions WP No. 899J/S7 and WP 15485/87 were filed earlier before this Court challenging the legality of the repoll order dated 11-7-87 and both the writ petitions were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Raghuvir, Acting Chief Justice and Sardar AliKhan J on 2-3-88 observing;

(2.) Shri Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Election Officer does not have power under Rule 22(6) (9) to adjourn the poll: that power is confined only on Presiding Officers under Rule 22(7) (n) (I) and (2). In opposition to this Shri Ella Reddy, learned counsel for the returned candidates maintains that under Rule 22 (7) (b) the Election Officer exercises control over the Presiding Officers and Polling Officers and this control extends to adjourning the poll if there are sufficient reasons warranting such adjournment

(3.) Rule 22 contains the entire gamut of procedure for conducting elections. Sub-rule (1) deals with appointment of Election Officers. Preparation of the voters list is dealt by sub rule (3). The Procedure for issuing of election notification is contained in sub-rule (4). Sub-rule (5) deals with nominations and sub-rule (6) with scrutiny of nomination papers. The Election Officer is required to take up the scrutiny of nomination papers by clause (1). Clause (2) confers power on the Election Officer to reject any nomination after scrutiny and the duty to record reasons for rejection is imposed by clause (3). By clause (4) the Election Officer is enjoined to publish on the notice board the names of the candidates whose nomination papers are found to be valid. Clauses (5) and (6) concern with the withdrawal of nomination papers and refund of deposits. By clause (7) power is conferred on the Election Officer to declare the results if the number of candidates whose nominations are found to be valid does not exceed the number of candidates seeking election. If the number of candidates seeking election is in excess of the number of candidates to be elected, the Election Officer, by clause (8), is required to allot symbols and inform the candidates accordingly. Clause (9) which is relevant reads as follows :-