PALLI PENTAYYA NAIDU Vs. SIRISETTI SOMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Yellamanchili, who is the fourth respondent in third appeal appointed Sri K. V. Ratnakar Rao to conduct the election for the Cheedigummala primary Agricultural Co- operative society. Sri Ratnakar Rao accordingly issued a noticed fixing the person-in- charge of the Society fixing 22- 6- 1978 as the date of the General Body meeting for electing the office bearers. On 2- 5- 1978, the fourth respondent modified his earlier order and appointed Sri G. Suvarnaraju Raju as the Election officer to conduct the election of the office bearers of the Society. In that order, it was specifically stated that the Election officer should continue the election process from the stage at which it was left by Sri Ratnakar Rao and that he should not initiate the election process if it was not started in respect of the Society. Thereafter, Sri Suvarnaraju; issued a notice on 25- 5-1978 fixing the date of the General body meeting for electing the office bearers as 2706-1978. The respondent herein who is the member of the Society field writ petition No. 2439 of 1978 questioning the action of Sri Suvarnaraju in postponing the date of election from 22- 6-1978 to 17- 6- 1978. He also applied for stay of the election. But, this court by its order dated 16-6-1978 rejected the application, but directed that the result of the election would be subject to the result of writ petition.

(2.) Our learned brother, Gangadhara Rao J. held that the noticed given by the Election officer postponing the date of election from 22-6-1978 to 27-6-1978 was illegal. Hr therefore quashed the noticed given by the Election officer to give an election programme afresh and hold the election according to rules. Meanwhile, in view of dismissal of the stay petition, the election was held on 27- 6- 1978, and the appellant herein was one of the persons who was elected as an office bearer. As, by reason of the order of this court in the stay petition, his election was subject to the result of the writ petition, and as the writ petition was allowed, his election was invalid. The appellant though not a party to the writ petition became aggrieved and preferred his appeal after obtaining the leave of this court. .

(3.) In holding that the notice postponing the date of election was illegal, Justice Gangadhara Rao referred to Rule 22, sub-rule (5), clause (iv) which provides that the Election officer shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when proceedings are interrupted of obstructed by riot or affray or by causes beyond his control. He held that in this case the proceedings were not interrupted or obstructed by riot or affray or by any cause beyond the control of the Election officer. Hence, the Election officer had no jurisdiction to adjourn the proceedings.