1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 17-9-2009. Counter affidavits had been filed.

2. Sri R.Machavaram, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the averments made in the respective counter affidavits and would maintain that in the light of the specific allegations made as against 6th respondent, inasmuch as the election itself was not held in accordance with law, the same being nonest in the eye of law, such election can be challenged by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence the stand taken in the respective counter affidavits cannot be sustained in this regard. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B.Rajagopala Rao Vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, A.P., Hyderabad and others (1967(2) An.W.R.26). The learned Counsel while further elaborating his submissions had also taken this Court through the letter of the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Kavali dated 31-1-2006, the notice for the Managing Committee made dated 2-11-2006, the show cause notice of termination dated 18-7-2009 and the termination order dated 1-8-2009. The learned Counsel also would contend that the stand taken by the other side that there is inordinate delay in approaching this Court also cannot be sustained inasmuch as the same had been well explained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.

3. The learned Government Pleader for Co-operation had taken this Court through the respective counter affidavits and would maintain that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is an effective alternative remedy available to the writ petitioner, if at all the writ petitioner is aggrieved of the election by challenging the same by invoking Section 61(3) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience). The learned Government Pleader for Co-operation also would point out that after a long lapse of time, the writ petitioner approached this Court making certain allegations against the specified officers which had been specifically denied. In the light of the clear counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Government Pleader for Co-operation also placed strong reliance on the decision in Dr.Anil Kolly Vs. The State of A.P. (2006(1) APLJ 353).

4. Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, the learned Counsel representing respondents 5 and 7 had taken this Court through the stand taken in the counter affidavit and would maintain that even if the conduct of the petitioner to be taken into consideration, in the light of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is clear that the Writ Petition is not a bonafide one and on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also would maintain that inasmuch as the alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioner, on the said ground also, the Writ Petition to be dismissed as not maintainable. Further while elaborating her submissions, the learned Counsel would maintain that elections were held in the year 2006 and for the reasons best known, though the writ petitioner, being the Secretary of Jaladanki Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (in short hereinafter referred to as Society), had knowledge of the same and having kept quiet for sufficiently a long time, the writ petitioner had preferred to challenge the same in the year 2009 and on the ground of inordinate delay also, the Writ Petition to be dismissed.

5. Heard the Counsel, perused the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the respective stands taken in the counter affidavits and also the material papers placed before this Court.

6. The Writ Petition is filed