1982 Supreme(AP) 462

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, V.RAMASWAMI
R.Venkata Rangareddy - Appellant
Versus
N.Muralidhar Rao - Respondent
Decided On : 11-25-82

Headnote:

ELECTION - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBER - ENQUIRY - JURISDICTION - ELECTION OFFICER - CESSATION OF MEMBERSHIP - AUTOMATIC - ENQUIRY BY REGISTRAR - RULE 24 (3) OF A. P. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES - INTERPRETATION - ELECTION PROCESS - INTERFERENCE BY COURT - DISQUALIFICATION - INCURRED BEFORE ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner, a member of the Agricultural Development Bank, Wanaparthy, sought a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directions or order to quash the notice convening a meeting to be held on 15-7-1982 at 2 pm. For electing the office bearers of the said committee. The writ petition came to be filed in the following circumstances. Elections to the managing committee of the Bank were held on 6-11-1981. For the purposes of this election, the area of operation of the Bank was divided into 11 constituencies as provided under the Andhra Pradesh co-operative societies Act and the Rules made thereunder and 11 persons were to be elected as members of the managing committee. The petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are, among the eleven members of the managing committee elected that day. The office bearers of the said committee could not however be elected that day owing to some interlocutory orders made by this Court pending the disposal of the writ petitions Nos. 8749 of 1981 and 8102 of 1981 questioning the said election. It is unnecessary for the purpose of this writ appeal to notice in detail the grounds on which the election was questioned in those writ petitions. Suffice to note that some members of the Bank questioned the legality and propriety of te election officer holding the elections and sought stay of the elections. The Court while admitting the writ petitions, did not stay the election of the members but only stayed the declaration of the results. Both these writ petitions were however later dismissed. These orders were communicated to the Election officer on 14-4-1982. On 17-4-1982 the collector asked the election officer to declare the result and proceed with the election of the office bearers. While so, an unsigned representation dated 18-4-1982 in the name of one of the petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions was sent to the district collector alleging that the respondents 5 and 6 had committed default in payment of the amounts due to the Bank and had thereby become ineligible to continue as members of the managing committee. As this representation was not signed, it was returned. Another representation dated 30-4-1982 alleging the same disqualification against respondents 5 and 6 this time signed by the writ petitioners, was sent to the district collector and the Election officer. The election officer by his letter dated 10-5-1982 thereupon sought a clarification from the district collector (co-operation) whether the could proceed with the election of the office bearers or initiate an enquiry into the alleged disqualification of respondents 5 and6 and decide that issue before holding the election. The divisional co-operative officer-cum-election Officer received a letter from the Registrar of co-operative societies on 21-6-1982 that he should first proceed with the enquiry into the disqualification. But before any enquiry was held, the Registrar by a further communication clarified that as the election process had already commenced the Election officer should first proceed with the election and cannot proceed to hold an enquiry and hold-up the elections pending such enquiry. On receiving this clarification, the election officer issued the impugned notice dated 6-7-1982 calling upon the members of the managing committee to elect office bearers on 15-7-1982. The writ petition was filed on 14-7-1982 questioning the jurisdiction of the election officer to hold an election without first enquiring into the disqualification alleged to have been incurred by respondents 5 and 6.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the election officer was not competent to go into the question whether respondents 5 and 6 were disqualified even before they were nominated for being elected as office bearers at the meeting held on 15-7-1982. The Court further held that the cessation of membership would occur automatically on the failure of the sarpanch to hold even a single meeting within a consecutive period of three months with effect from the date of expiration of that three months period. Whenever the failure to hold such a meeting takes place, cessation also automatically occurs. Whether it has happened in the past or whether it occurs in the present or whether it may occur in the future is immaterial, since cessation is an automatic occurrence with the filure to hold meetinds.

Issues: 1. Whether the election officer is competent to decide the objection of disqualification of a member of the committee? 2. Whether the cessation of membership of the committee is automatic upon incurring of disqualification? 3. Whether the election process which has commenced should be interfered with by the Court?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The election officer is not empowered by the Act or the rules or the bye-laws to go into the qualification or disqualification of an elected member of the committee. 2. The cessation of membership of the committee is automatic, if a member becomes disqualification or not that allegation has to be enquired into after notice by the competent authority and a finding arrived at as to whether a particular member has become disqualified or not. 3. The election process which has commenced should not be interfered with ordinarily by any Court.

Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed and the direction detailed above shall issue and the writ petition is dismissed.