Courts should not ordinarily interfere with an ongoing election process.

ORDER :

The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer :

“…declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent Bank in proceeding with the election of three Directors by appointing its Legal Advisor/Advocate of the Bank as an Election Officer without framing subsidiary regulations for conducting elections to the Board of Directors as prescribed under Bye Law No.29 (C) of the bye-laws of the bank and issuing Notification Dt.21-01-2022 by the election officer for conducting election on 28-02-2022 by stipulating unnecessary conditions as per his wish and suit the convenience of the Managing Committee of the Society is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to byelaws and also contrary to the provisions of A.P.M.A.C.S. Act and consequently to set aside the election process and conduct election afresh by framing necessary rules/regulations for conducting election as prescribed under Bye-Law No.29 (C) of the Byelaws of the Bank and …”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is Member of 3rd respondent Bank, which is registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995. The Board of Directors of the Bank consists of not more than 15 members and are elected from among the eligible members. Bye-law No.29 of the Bye-laws prescribed to the Bank, deals with Board of Directors. Bye-law No.29 (C) prescribes that subsidiary regulation shall be framed by the Managing Committee for conducting the elections to the Board of Directors and it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Managing Committee to frame Regulations before going for elections. But, election is being conducted every year for the last 25 years without there being any regulations for conducting and how to conduct elections. The election is being conducted in a routine and mechanical manner to suit convenience of the Managing Committee by appointing its Legal Advisor/Advocate as Election Officer. The Board of Directors, without framing any Rules for conducting elections, are appointing the very same person as Election Officer and paving way to elect the very same Directors who retired, on rotation.

The Election Officer is acting in a biased manner and has not given publicity for conducting elections. No valid voters list is prepared and displayed on the notice board of the Bank. In view of the irregular process adopted by the Election Officer, Board of Directors residing in Visakhapatnam Urban Area are being elected as Directors for the last 25 years again and again though they incurred disqualification as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India.

Election Officer issued Election Notification on 21.01.2022 fixing election schedule. Election is scheduled on 28.2.2022. The Election Officer is completely guided by the present Board of Directors and is not conducting the elections as per the Act and bye-laws and intentionally restricted other members to contest in elections. He is not receiving nominations from the persons chosen by the present Board of Directors only but not from others. Election is not being conducted in transparent manner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that once election process had already commenced, Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the election process.

It is further stated that Subsidiary Regulations under Bye-law 29 (C) for conducting elections were framed long back in the Board Meeting held on 14.08.2004 and the same are being followed since then for conducting the elections, and the Board has discretion to appoint Election Officer for proper conduct of the elections and there is no bar for appointing a Legal Officer/Standing Counsel as Election Officer either in the Act or Bye-laws or even as per Subsidiary Regulations; that the election is conducted as per the procedure contemplated and as per t