Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act create a special forum for deciding all disputes relating to, or in connection with, any election to a Committee of a Society, and that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain such disputes is barred by necessary implication.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition raises the question whether it is open to Civil Courts to entertain disputes relating to or in connection with an election to a Committee of a Co-operative Society before the declaration of result of election. The contention of the writ petitioner is that sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 61 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act operate as a bar to Civil courts entertaining such disputes. We may first stale the facts leading to the flling of this writ petition as found stated in the order of the learned District munsif, Andole, Jogipet.

( 2 ) THE Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Andole, had a membership of 1,670. In May, 1987 a ferson-Incharge was managing tbe affairs of the Society and exercising the powers of the Committee, since the term of the elected Committee had expired quite sometime ago. The Person-Incharge admitted as many as 3,059 persons as members on or about 13-5-1987. According to the contesting respondent (impleaded as 4th respondent), tbe admission of 3,059 members was irregular and invalid, inasmuch as tbe procedure prescribed by law was not followed while admitting them as members. According to him, this was done with a view to influence the result of election which was notified to be held on 30-6-1987. The names of these 3,059 members were included in the list of valid voters prepared and published by the Election officer, on the basis of Information and records furnished by tbe Persons incharge. Inasmuch as, according to him, these members were not validly admitted, they are not entitled to be so included in tbe list of valid voters, nor are they entitled to participate or contest in the election to the Committee. The 4th respondent, accordingly, approached the learned District Munsif with a sult numbered as O. S. 69/1987, for a permanent Injunction restraining the dsfendants from fllowing tbe said 3,059 members to participate in tbe election scheduled to be held on 30-6-1987. In that suit be filed I. A. No, 129/87 for a temporary injunction restraining the respondent, !. e. , Election Officer and the person-Incharge of the Society, from allowing the said members admitted on 13-5-87 to exercise their votes in the election scheduled to be held on 30-6-1987. A notice was given to the respondents, who filed a written statement and also a counter denying the several allegations made by the plaintiff (4th respondent in this writ petition ). The learned District Munsif looked into the records and found that the Person-Incharge of the Society had not followed the prescribed procedure while admitting the new members, 3,059 in number and that therefore, a temporary injunction ought to issue restraining the respondent, from permitting such newly added members to participate in the election. The learned District Munsif found, on the basis of the material placed before him, that there were no proper applications by the said new members for admission as members of the Society, that there is no proof that the prescribed fee was received before admitting them, and that even the resolution admitting them is not written in the Minutes Book, but only a fly-sheet is attached recording the resolution. Aggrieved by the said order, one R. Venugopal, who is one of the 3,059 members, filed the present writ petition in this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction, declaring the action of the respondents, i. e. , Election Officer, Person-Incharge, and the District Collector, Medak, in not allowing the enrolled members to exercise their franchise in the election to the Committee of the Society, as null and void. In this writ petition he filed WPMP. No. 11479/87 to stay the elections, whereupon a Bench of this court directed notice to the respondents, and directed farther that meanwhile status quo as on the date of the said order should continue. This order is dated 30-6-1987. Be that as it may, whether by virtue of the said order or in pursuance of certai