K YELLA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions G 0 Ms. No, 359, dated 27-1987 amending Rule 22 of the Rules made under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act',) and the consequent issuance of notice to reduce the time for the elections to the managing committees of the District Co-operative Central Banks, are challenged.

(2.) To appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to the various amendments carried out chronologically. Section 130 of the Act empowers the Government to make ruJes for carrying out all or any of the purposes of the Act for the whole or any peri of the State and for any class of societies. Section 31(3) (a) lays down that in the case of the committe of a Co-operetive Central Bank and other societies of the District level, an officer of the department not below the rank of a Deputy Registrar, shall be the election officer and the election of the members of the com mittee shall be in such manner as may be prescribed. Rule 22 provides for life entire programme for holding the elections. Rule 22 (1) (d) as it stood in the year 1985 provided for the appointment of the election officer for the Central and District societies and lays down that the election authority shall appoint the election officer for these societies and inform the President or the Chief Executive of the society by registered post not less than 45 days prior to the date of poll. Under the 3rd proviso the Rule22 (3) (b) the Managing Direptor or Secretary or the Business Manager of these District Co-operative Central Banks and societies including the Apex Societies, shall prepare and furnish to the Election Officer not less than twenty days befora the date of poll a list containing the names of delegates of affiliated societies and the individual members of the societies. Similarly under the 1st proviso to Rule 22(4) (a) the election officer had to issue a notice of election not less than 20 days before the date of poll containing the particulars about the elections. G O Ms. No. 229, dated 45-1987 was issued amending Rule 22. The period under Rule 22( 1) (d) (ii) in respect of the Central and District societies, is reduced from 45 days to 20 days. The period under the 3rd Proviso to Rule 22 (3)(b) is reduced from 20 days to 7 days. A Proviso is added to Rule 22(4) (a) reducing the period of 20 days to 7 days In respect of Apex Societies, District Co-operative Central Banks and Societies. Again the Government issued the impugned G O Ms. No. 359, dated 2-7-1987 amending Rule 22(1) (d) and reducing the peripd from 20 days to 7 days in respect of Central and District societies, and reducing the period in the 3rd" Proviso to Rule 22(3)(b) from 7 days to 4 days and correspondingly reducing the period under Rule 22(4) (a) from 7 days' to 5 days.

(3.) In all these writ petition it is submitted that the elections to primary agricultural co-operative societies ware held on 28-6-87 and 30-6-1987 except to those societies in respect of which there is stay or postponement of elections, and the counting took place on 1-7-1987 and results also were announced on the same day, and the elected presidents of these societies are the eligible voters for the elections to the District societies and by virtue of the amendment of the Rule in the above manner reducing the time gap, the voters had no sufficient time to actively participate in the elections and some of them though were interested to contest, could not do so because of the short notice and those who contested also could not effectively canvass. In this context it is also submitted that the voters list that is published in respect of each of these district co-operative banks and societies did not even contain the names of the newly elected presidents except showing the designation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel the impugned amended rule is not in consonance with the schema of the Act, nor does it subserve the purposes of the Act as contained in the language employed in Section 130 of the Act, and that the impugned Rule is outside the scope of the delegated legislation. It is also submitted that even otherwise the Rule is not complied with meticulously and there has been violation of the principles of natural justice and the Government while exercising the delegated power has acted in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner and therefore the issuance of the impugned G 0 is beyond the legislative competence and the same power has been exercised in bad faith.