Point of Law: In the absence of any clear indication that the State aid has to be continuous and regular, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that one time aid by way of subsidy to any society would not be covered within the term State aid, cannot be accepted, and the declaration of invalidity made by respondent No. 4 about the elections conducted by the petitioner-society on its own, cannot be faulted with.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Challenging the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 21889 of 2021 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, the present writ appeal has been preferred. By the order under challenge, the learned single Judge declined to quash the proceedings issued by respondent No. 4-Assistant Director of Fisheries, Visakhapatnam, dated 14.09.2021, under which the elections conducted to the petitioner-society were declared as invalid as per Section 43 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and Rule 22(B) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’).

2. The petitioner preferred the writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 14.09.2021 issued by respondent No. 4, under which the elections conducted to the petitioner-society were declared as invalid on the ground that the petitioner-society conducted elections of its own and as per Section 43 of the Act and Rule 22(B) of the Rules, if the society obtained financial aid from the state Government or from the Government organizations, the Government has to conduct elections to the petitioner-society, and that the petitioner- society has taken small boats and fishing nets worth Rs. 3,24,108/- from AFCOF at 25% subsidy and therefore, the society cannot conduct elections of its own. It is urged before the learned single Judge that that the petitioner-society is a small society consisting of 89 members and it has not received any financial aid from the State and therefore, the incumbent managing committee themselves conducted elections. But the respondents have illegally declared the elections as invalid.

3. The petitioner also challenged the election schedule issued by respondent No. 5, dated 21.09.2021 to conduct elections to respondent No. 6, contending that the petitioner-society is affiliated to respondent No. 6-society and it has voting right, however, on account of the proceedings dated 14.09.2021, it is disqualified from participating in the election and it is deprived of voting right.

4. Further, it is argued before the learned single Judge that the petitioner-society has not received any financial aid from the State except the above subsidy that too in the year 1992-93 and therefore, the elections conducted by the petitioner-society cannot be invalidated and the society cannot be disqualified from participating in the elections to be conducted to respondent No. 6-society.

5. The learned single Judge has referred to the law down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in Ch. Srinivasa Rao and Another vs. District Collector/Election, 2007 (3) ALD 197, wherein it is held as follows:

“Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Rules 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’) envisaged the whole process of conducting elections to all classes of cooperative societies in the State. The procedure envisaged therein includes various steps such as appointment of Election Officer, publication of list of members eligible to vote, inviting claims or objections from the members to the draft voters list, communication of the final voters list to the Election Officer by the Chief Executive Officer or President of the Society, issuance of election notice by the Election Officer, fixing the election programme, holding of elections and declaration of result etc. Rule 22 of the Rules is therefore a complete code in itself. It is held in a large number of decisions that every step envisaged in Rule 22 of the Rules forms part of the election process and any dispute relating to any of these steps constitutes a dispute relating to or in connection with an election within the meaning of Section 61(3) of the Act.”

Referring to the above judgment, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the relief sought for by the petitioner could not be granted because the validity or otherwise of the final voters’ list cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article