APPA REDDY K Vs. ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) Theappellantsherein 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.

(3.) 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: