Dismissed

Pathangi Janaiah, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC9 Oct 2012WP/31541/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an election notification for a Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society. The Court held that procedural illegality should be raised via an election dispute later, not by stalling the election via writ. Petitioners were granted liberty to file a dispute under the relevant Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to raise election dispute under Section 61(3) of the Act after election completion.

Pathangi Janaiah, Vs The District Collector — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

¶2

Writ Petition No.31541 of 2012

¶3

Date: 09-10-2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Pathangi Janaiah and 2 others.

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

and

¶8

The District Collector, Nalgonda District and another.

¶9

.....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Bommaw Razaiiah Counsel for respondent No.2 : GP for Cooperation

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

Order:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to hold election without duly following the byelaws of the Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society Limited, AP Lingotam, Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District (for short ‘the Society’), as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The petitioners claim to be the members of the Society. Respondent No.2, who was appointed as the Election Officer by respondent No.1, has issued election notification, dated 29-09-2012, for holding election to the Managing Committee of the Society. As per the said notification, the date of election is fixed as 12-10-2012. The grievance of the petitioners is that without deleting the 15 ineligible members from the voters list, respondent No.2 is seeking to go ahead with the election. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have submitted any representation to respondent No.2 on the alleged ineligibility of the said 15 persons. The petitioners are unable to state as to when the names of those 15 persons were included and whether they have raised any objection thereon before or after such inclusion.

¶14

The law is well settled that the election process will commence with the issuance of the election notification and end with the declaration of result. Ordinarily, the aggrieved party is not entitled to approach the Court for stalling the election. If he/she feels aggrieved by the procedural illegality in the holding of election, they can only raise an election dispute. (See Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. The Chief

¶15

Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others^[1] and Dhulipalla Narendra Kumar vs. A.P.Co-operative

¶16

Tribunal, Vijayawada & others^[2] )

¶17

In the light of the above legal position, I am not inclined to interfere with the election process. The petitioners are, however, given liberty to raise an election dispute under Section 61(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, after completion of the election process.

¶18

Subject to the above liberty given as above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶19

As a sequel, WPMP.No.40230 of 2012, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶20

_____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

¶21

Date: 09-10-2012 lur

¶22