R VENKATA RANGAREDDY Vs. N MURALIDHAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is by respondents in writ petition No. 4676 of 1982 which was allowed by the learned single Judge. The writ petitioner a member of the Agricultural Development bank, Wanaparthy sought a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directions or order to quash the notice No. 1268/82-C dated 6-7-1982. Issued by the Divisional co-operative officer, primary Agricultural Development Bank, Wanaparthy (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) convening a meeting to be held on 15-7-1982 at 2Pm. For electing the office bearers of th said committee the writ petition came to be filed in the following circumstances. Elections to the managing committee of the Bank were held on 6-11-1981. For the purposes of this election, the area of operation of the Bank was divided into 11 constituencies as provided under the Andhra Pradesh co-operative societies Act and the Rules made thereunder and 11 persons were to be elected as members of the managing committee. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are, among the eleven members of the managing committee elected that day. The office bearers of the said committee could not however be elected that day the office bearers of the said committee could not however be elected that day owing to some interlocutory orders made by this Court pending the disposal of the writ petitions Nos. 8749 of 1981 and 8102 of 1981 questioning the said election. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this writ appeal to notice in detail the grounds on which the election was questioned in those writ petitions. Suffice to note that some members of the Bank questioned the legality and propriety of te election officer holding the elections and sought stay of the elections. The Court while admitting the writ petitions, did not stay the election of the members but only stayed the declaration of the results. Both these writ petitions were however later dismissed. These orders were communicated to the Election officer on 14-4-1982. On 17-4-1982 the collector asked the election officer to declare the result and proceed with the election of the office bearers. While so, an unsigned representation dated 18-4-1982 in the name of one of the petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions was sent to the district collector alleging that the respondents 5 and 6 had committed default in payment of the amounts due to the Bank and had thereby become ineligible to continue as members of the managing committee. As this representation was not signed, it was returned. Another representation dated 30-4-1982 alleging the same disqualification against respondents 5 and 6 this time signed by the writ petitioners, was sent to the district collector and the Election officer. The election officer by his letter dated 10-5-1982 thereupon sought a clarification from the district collector (co-operation) whether the could proceed with the election of the office bearers or initiate an enquiry into the alleged disqualification of respondents 5 and6 and decide that issue before holding the election. The divisional co-operative officer-cum-election Officer received a letter from the Registrar of co-operative societies on 21-6-1982 that he should first proceed with the enquiry into the disqualification. But before any enquiry was held, the Registrar by a further communication clarified that as the election process had already commenced the Election officer should first proceed with the election and cannot proceed to hold an enquiry and hold-up the elections pending such enquiry. On receiving this clarification, the election officer issued the impugned notice dated 6-7-1982 calling upon the members of the managing committee to elect office bearers on 15-7-1982. The writ petition was filed on 14-7-1982 questioning the jurisdiction of the election officer to hold an election without first enquiring into the disqualification alleged to have been incurred by respondents 5 and 6. The Court while not staying the elections of office-bearers directed the results to be withheld. Accordingly, elections were held on 15-7-1982 but the results were withheld.

(2.) The main contention in the writ petition was that respondents 5 and 6 had become ineligible under S. 21-A (1-B) of the A.P. Co-operative societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) to continue as members of the Managing committee on account of their default in payment of the amounts due to the Bank. According to them, this disqualification was incurred on 1-1-1982. On account of this disqualification, they ceased to be members of the Managing committee of the Bank and consequently were not eligible to participate and vote at the election. When an allegation that a member of the managing committee had incurred disqualification is made, it is incumbent upon the divisional co-operative officer-cum-Election officer to enquire into that allegation and decide the question before holding the election. As the divisional co-operative officer-cum-election officer failed to make any enquiry and decide the issue of disqualification, a writ of certiorari or other appropriate direction is sought to quash the election notice itself.

(3.) The allegation that respondents 5 and 6 have incurred disqualification is stately denied. It was also pointed out that the petitioner failed to give the particulars of the alleged disqualification both in his representation to the district collector as well as in the writ petition. It was also contended that the Election officer is not competent to make an enquiry into the alleged grounds of disqualification and further before the management of the Bank is entrusted to the managing committee, in the eye of law, the Managing committee does not come into existence and as such no disqualification is incurred by any member of the Managing Committee under S. 21-A (1-B) of the Act.