K PARTHASARATHY REDDY Vs. K SADHUPAUL ELECTION OFFICER THE CHITTOOR DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL STORES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Board 'of Directors of the Chittoor District Cooperative Central Stores Ltd., comprises of 12 members, 10 to be elected from 'A' class members one from among the delegates of the affiliated Cooperative Societies, and one representative of the non-cooperative institutions. Elections were notified for electing a new Board of Directors (Committee) according to which programme the last date for receiving the nomina- tions was 18-1-1882. The scrutiny was to take place on 19-1-1982, and the publication of the final list of valid nominations on 20-1-1982. The date fixed for poll was 30-1-1982. The appellant (writ-petitioner) filed two nominations, one from among the 'A' class members and the other from the non-cooperative institutions. Respondent No. 3 is one of the candidates from 'A' class members, while the 4th respondent is the other canditate who filed his nomination from among the non-cooperative institutions.

(2.) The appellant's case is that on 19-1-1982 both his nominations were accepted during the scrutiny but that, later on, under the pressure of certain political leaders, his nomination papers were again taken up for scrutiny at 3-00 p. m., and rejected, on the ground that he is disqualified under Section 21-A (1) (b) of the ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964. Immediately thereupon the appellant moved this court by way of a writ petition, which ultimately came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this court. The petitioner's allegation that his nomination was accepted in the morning at 10-00 a m and that it was again taken up for scrutiny at 3-00 p. m., was denied by the Election Officer and also by the 3rd respondent. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the action of the Election Officer in rejecting the appellant's nomination papers cannot be interfered with in a writ petition ind that, the remedy of election-petition is always open to him.

(3.) In this writ Appeal, Sri P. Babul Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised the following two contentions, viz. (i) that the Act or the Rules do not empower the Election Officer to decide the issue whether a particular candidate is in default in payment of any amount to a society and that, the question of default can be determined only by the authorities empowered in that behelf by the Act and the Rules. Unless a competent court or authority has determined finally that a particular person is in default, the Election Officer cannot hold a candidate to be in default and reject his nomination; and (ii) that, the Election Officer having accepted the appellant's nomination papers in the morning at 10-00 a.m.,. had no power to re-open the said issue in the afternoon and reject the same. The records would disclose that the Election Officer acted unfairly, and obviously on extraneous considerations.