Back
1982 Supreme(AP) 213
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, V.MADHAVA RAO
K.Parthasarathy Reddy - Appellant
Versus
K.Sadhupaul, Election Officer, The Chittoor District Co-operative Central Stores Ltd.Janata Bazar, Chittoor, - Respondent
Decided On : 07-16-82
The Election Officer is empowered to decide the issue of whether a candidate is in default in payment of any amount to a society under Section 21-A(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and a prior decision by a competent court, tribunal, or authority is not required.
Headnote:
ELECTION - DISQUALIFICATION - DEFAULT IN PAYMENT OF AMOUNT TO SOCIETY - ELECTION OFFICER'S POWER TO DECIDE - SCRUTINY OF NOMINATION PAPERS - RE-OPENING OF ISSUE - ADMISSIBILITY - ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964 - SECTION 21-A(1)(B) - RULE 22(6) OF THE A.P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant filed two nominations for election to the Board of Directors of the Chittoor District Cooperative Central Stores Ltd. The Election Officer accepted the nominations during the scrutiny but later rejected them on the ground that the appellant was disqualified under Section 21-A(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, for being in default in payment of an amount to the Harijan Development Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Election Officer is empowered under Section 21-A(1)(b) read with Rule 22(6) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules to decide all objections raised at the time of scrutiny, including the issue of whether a candidate is in default in payment of any amount to a society. 2. The Election Officer's decision can be challenged in an election petition, and it is subject to the decision of the Election Tribunal. 3. A prior decision by a competent court, tribunal, or authority is not required before the Election Officer can hold a person disqualified under Section 21-A(1)(b). 4. The Election Officer should not reject nomination papers unless a clear case of disqualification is made out. In case of doubt, the nomination should be accepted, and the electoral process should be allowed to take its course. 5. The Election Officer's decision to reopen the issue of the appellant's nomination papers in the afternoon after initially accepting them in the morning was procedurally irregular.
Issues: 1. Whether the Election Officer has the power to decide the issue of whether a candidate is in default in payment of any amount to a society under Section 21-A(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964? 2. Whether a prior decision by a competent court, tribunal, or authority is required before the Election Officer can hold a person disqualified under Section 21-A(1)(b)? 3. Whether the Election Officer can reopen the issue of a candidate's nomination papers after initially accepting them?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 21-A(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, read with Rule 22(6) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, empowers the Election Officer to decide all objections raised at the time of scrutiny, including the issue of whether a candidate is in default in payment of any amount to a society. 2. The Act and Rules do not require a prior decision by a competent court, tribunal, or authority before the Election Officer can hold a person disqualified under Section 21-A(1)(b). 3. The Election Officer should not reject nomination papers unless a clear case of disqualification is made out. In case of doubt, the nomination should be accepted, and the electoral process should be allowed to take its course. 4. The Election Officer's decision to reopen the issue of the appellant's nomination papers in the afternoon after initially accepting them in the morning was procedurally irregular.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, but the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THE Board of Directors of the Chittoor District Cooperative central Stores Ltd. , comprises of 12 members, 10 to be elected from a class members one from among the delegates of the affiliated Cooperative societies, and one representative of the non-cooperative institutions. Elections were notified for electing a new Board of Directors (Committee) according to which programme the last date for receiving the nomina- tions was 18-1-1882. The scrutiny was to take place on 19-1-1982, and the publication of the final list of valid nominations on 20-1-1982. The date fixed for poll was 30-1-1982. The appellant (writ-petitioner) filed two nominations, one from among the a class members and the other from the non-cooperative institutions. Respondent No. 3 is one of the candidates from a class members, while the 4th respondent is the other canditate who filed his nomination from among the non-cooperative institutions.
( 2 ) THE appellant s case is that on 19-1-1982 both his nominations were accepted during the scrutiny but that, later on, under the pressure of certain political leaders, his nomination papers were again taken up for scrutiny at 3-00 p. m. , and rejected, on the ground that he is disqualified under Section 21-A (1) (b) of the ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964. Immediately thereupon the appellant moved this court by way of a writ petition, which ultimately came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this court. The petitioner s allegation that his nomination was accepted in the morning at 10-00 a m and that it was again taken up for scrutiny at 3-00 p. m. , was denied by the Election Officer and also by the 3rd respondent. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the action of the Election Officer in rejecting the appellant s nomination papers cannot be interfered with in a writ petition ind that, the remedy of election-petition is always open to him.
( 3 ) IN this writ Appeal, Sri P. Babul Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, raised the following two contentions, viz. (i) that the Act or the Rules do not empower the Election Officer to decide the issue whether a particular candidate is in default in payment of any amount to a society and that, the question of default can be determined only by the authorities empowered in that behelf by the Act and the Rules. Unless a competent court or authority has determined finally that a particular person is in default, the Election Officer cannot hold a candidate to be in default and reject his nomination; and (ii) that, the Election Officer having accepted the appellant s nomination papers in the morning at 10-00 a. m. ,. had no power to re-open the said issue in the afternoon and reject the same. The records would disclose that the Election Officer acted unfairly, and obviously on extraneous considerations.
( 4 ) SECTION 21-A provides disqualifications for being chosen as, and for being a member of the Committee (Committee means the Board of Directors in the present case ). For a proper appreciation of the contentions urged by the learned counsel, it would be appropriate to set out the several disqualifications. Section 21-A (1), in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows:-"21-A (1) Disqualification for membership of Committee;- (1) No person shall be eligible for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Committee, if he- (a) is such near relative of such paid employee of the society or its financing bank as may be prescribed; (b) is in deafult in the payment of any amount due in cash or kind to the society or any other society for such period as may be prescribed or is a delegate of a society which is defunct or which is in default as aforesaid; (c) is a person against whom any amount due under a decree, decision, award or order is pending recovery under this Act; (d) acquires any interest in any subsisting contract made with or work being done for, the society, except as otherwise pres
