V SUBBA REDDY Vs. ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the holding of elections to Chandralal Large-sized Co-operative Credit Society, Ltd., Chandrala, was challenged. A petition was also filed to stay the elections. Bench consisting of one of us (the Chief Justice) and Kuppuswami, J., had granted an interim stay on 29/12/1967, but later, after the respondents appeared, and after the parties were heard, the stay was vacated and the Bench directed the elections to proceed from the stage it was sayed, which elections were to be held subject to the result of the writ petition, We are told that subsequently the elections have been held.

(2.) In this writ petition, Mr. Choudary appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contends that the amendment of By-law 19(2), under which the election was held, was not properly made in accordance with S. 16(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act (7 of 1964) (herein-after called "the Act"), in that the general body had not approved the amendment as required by that, provision, and consequently, the elections held were illegal and should be set side it is averred that by-law 19(2) as amended and registered by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Vijayawada in his R. Dis No. 10089/61 -- dtd. 10/6/1961 provided for the election of 11 directors to the Managing Committee of the Society, that out of the 11 directors, one director should come from Fixed Deposit holders holding not less than Rs.250.00 uneneumbered deposit with the Society, and that the remaining 10 directors are to be elected according to that by-law from among the member of the general body at the rate of one director for each of the villages or groups of villages. The respondent Election Officer, it is contended, by his undated notice directed the general body to elect only 9 directors, of whom 8 were to be elected from the 10 villages which are situated within the area of operation of the Society and one to be elected from the fixed Deposit holders. It is also alleged that respondents 2 to 6 were disqualified as they had not paid the dues to the Co-operative Society. It is further alleged that the list of nominated candidates was not published on the next day of the scrutiny namely, 22-12- 1967. as required by the rules. The 1st respondent-Election Officer in his counter has denied these allegations, as also the allegation that 15 days' clear notice was not given before the election was conducted he further stated that be had issued notices for con-ducting the elections for electing 9 directors, one from amoung the members who hold Fixed Deposits of Rs.250.00, and 8 from the villages within the area of operation of the Society, that even though it was mentioned that there are 10 villages within the area of the society, two villages, Parvatapuram and Kanimerla are not in existence, in a much as they were completely de-populated and so there is no question of any directors being elected from those two villages, and that pupulated villages are only 8 within the area of operation of the society and so 8 directors were being elected from these villages. In so far as the allegation that 15 days' clear notice was not given is concerned it was stated by him that all the notices for the election to be held on 30/12/67 were posted under certificate of posting, 75% of which were posted on 12th and 13th of December and the remaining on the 14th December. There are also allegations made by the Election Officer that he was threatened by T. Samudra Sekheraro and his followers, who had also attempted to assaul him, because he had rejected the nomination of the 2nd petitioner, Samudra Sekhara Rao, that therefore he came out of the office room of the society, that in this confusion, they removed the bundle for froms of the certificate of posting and another letter in which the Secretary of the society has certified that none of the candidates who filed their nominations seeking election to the society owe any dues to the Co-operative Society, and that this matter was also reported to the police, but no action was taken. He denied that that list of valid nominations was not published on 22/12/1967. He says that they were in fact published the day of the scrutiny itself at 5-30 p.m. on 21/12/67 as per the election rules, He further averred that the nomination of the 2nd petitioner, T. Samudra Sekhara Rao, was rejected after verifying the complaints made by Rayala Seetharamayya and Rayala Basavayya, viz., that the cash balance relating to the collection of amounts from members of the society and due for remittance to the Vijayawada Co-operative Central Bank was not remitted, that the sale-proceeds of manures relating to the Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society were not remitted to that Society, and that he entered into indirect sales by the society by issuing slips to the Secretary for the release of manures to the persons in whom he had interest, contrary to the instructions of the Government for the release of manures in the capacity as Treasurer of the Society and in the capacity as Vice-President of the Society. The 5th respondent also filed a counter supporting the 1st respondent. It was also stated by him that no objections were received in respect of disqualification of respondents 2 to 6.

(3.) In the reply affidavit, for the first time the amendment of By-law 19 was challenged.