The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an election notice in a cooperative society. It held the petition was not maintainable as the appropriate remedy lies in filing an election petition, relying on established legal positions and precedent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.31712 of 2010
DT.16.12.2010
Between:
A.P.Reddy
… Petitioner
And
The District Collector (Cooperation/Election Authority (U) District, Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Ravi Shanker
Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Cooperation
The Court made the following ORDER:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in issuing election notice, dated 27.11.2010, as illegal and arbitrary.
After hearing, Sri P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that the writ petition filed questioning the election process is not maintainable in view of well settled legal position that the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to file an election petition. This Court in Dhulipalla Narendra Kumar v. A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada,
Krishna Distric t[1] has discussed the relevant case law on the issue,
vide its judgment, dated 21.09.2010 and held as under:
“In my opinion, even in the absence of a constitutional bar, in the face of the legislative mandate, which enables an aggrieved party to raise a dispute relating to holding of elections to a cooperative society, it is not possible for this Court to interfere after the commencement of election process. Furthermore, the logic behind non-interference with the election process applies equally to cooperative societies as much as they apply to the Legislative Assemblies and Parliament, as the primary objective of holding of elections to a body corporate is to ensure that the organization is administered by the elected persons. In any event, the judgment in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (1 supra) is an authority for the proposition that even in respect of election disputes relating to cooperative societies, the Courts would not ordinarily interfere with the election process.“
For the above-mentioned reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of an election petition, after declaring the election results.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.40322 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)
Date: 16.12.2010 VGB
[1] W.P.No.23349 of 2010, dated 21.09.2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition questioning the legality of an election notice in a cooperative society is maintainable when the appropriate remedy is an election petition.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the election process of a cooperative society during the election phase.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhulipalla Narendra Kumar v. A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, VijayawadaReferred¶15
A.P.Reddy
The District Collector
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
