YELAMANCHILI SATYA KRISHNA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he is Member of 3rd respondent Bank, which is registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co- operative Societies Act, 1995. The Board of Directors of the Bank consists of not more than 15 members and are elected from among the eligible members. Bye-law No.29 of the Bye-laws prescribed to the Bank, deals with Board of Directors. Bye-law No.29 (C) prescribes that subsidiary regulation shall be framed by the Managing Committee for conducting the elections to the Board of Directors and it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Managing Committee to frame Regulations before going for elections. But, election is being conducted every year for the last 25 years without there being any regulations for conducting and how to conduct elections. The election is being conducted in a routine and mechanical manner to suit convenience of the Managing Committee by appointing its Legal Advisor/Advocate as Election Officer. The Board of Directors, without framing any Rules for conducting elections, are appointing the very same person as Election Officer and paving way to elect the very same Directors who retired, on rotation.

(3.) Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that once election process had already commenced, Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the election process.