The dispute mainly pertains to preparation of voters’ list in respect of Penugonda Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, West Godavari District (for short 'the Society').

2. Earlier, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2114 of 2013 for declaring the action of respondent No. 2 in not taking further steps for holding elections to the Society as illegal and arbitrary. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 1.2.2013, wherein it was recorded that it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation that in view of the interim order granted in Writ Petition No. 39769 of 2012, no further steps were taken to finalise the list of eligible members for sending the same to the Election Officer as contemplated under Rule 22 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Rules') and that the respondents are prepared to proceed with the election process from the stage where it was stopped. This Court further observed that in view of the interim order passed in WP No. 39769 of 2012, the election process was stopped from 31.12.2012 to 4.1.2013 and that the list of members is not finalised by the Chief Executive Officer/President of the Society. Accordingly, a direction was issued to the respondents to proceed with the election process from the stage where it was stopped i.e., 31.12.2012.

3. Purporting to follow the said order, respondent No. 3 has issued a revised election schedule, as per which, the preparation of list of eligible members to vote by the Chief Executive Officer and publication was fixed as 25.2.2013. Questioning this revised election schedule, the petitioner filed this writ petition.

4. The main plea on which this writ petition is filed is that the revised election schedule is contrary to the undertaking given by the learned Government Pleader, based on which, the previous writ petition, i.e., WP No. 2114 of 2013, along with WP No. 1507 of 2013, was disposed of.

5. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the guise of revising the election schedule, the respondents have been trying to include the members who are not eligible to vote as on 31.12.2012 in the Voters’ List.

6. Respondent No. 8 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he has made certain serious allegations against respondent Nos. 5 and 7. These allegations, if true, shock one's conscience. However, this Court is not inclined to render any findings on these allegations because in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to render conclusive findings on the allegations of the nature, as are levelled by respondent No. 8 against respondent Nos. 5 and 7. However, this Court takes judicial notice of, the fact that respondent No. 8 being an employee of the Society had to go to the extent of making serious allegations of interference by respondent Nos. 5 and 7. This Court only hopes that in future, the superior officers such as respondent Nos. 5 and 7 will not give scope for such allegations being levelled by their subordinate officers.

7. Without transversing further on the allegations made by respondent No. 8, it will suffice to note that according to respondent No. 8, on the pressure exerted by respondent Nos. 5 and 7, he was forced to write letter, dated 5.3.2013, at 6 p.m., to the effect that the list of eligible members to vote contains not only original 1,293 voters, but also additional 968 and 26 members. According to him, as on 31.12.2012, only 1,293 members were eligible for inclusion in the Voters’ List.

8. Under Rule 22(2)(b)(iii) of the Rules, the Chief Executive Officer or President of the Society shall invite the claims or objections from the members. Under sub-rule (ii) thereof, the Chief Executive Officer or President of the Society shall communicate the final list of members eligible to vote to the Election Officer on the date specified by the election authority and under sub-rule (vi) thereof, after