Point of Law :
It must be remembered that dispute is not merely as to the admission of members, in which case it would not be a dispute relating to or in connection with the election to the committee; it is a dispute whether they are entitled to participate in the election. Such a dispute can only be raised and determined in an election petition filed under the said sub-sections (sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 61)”

ORDER :

1. Petitioners claim that they are members of Motinagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Motinagar, Hyderabad, essentially, a house building society registered under the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners challenge the election notification dated 14.11.2019 issued by the 4th respondent – Election Officer-cum-Assistant Registrar, Motinagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited proposing to conduct elections to the 3rd respondent Society, pending consideration of their objections dated 05.11.2019.

3. I.A.No.2 of 2019 was filed by one Sri Anji Reddy, S/o Bangaru Reddy, member of the society and who is interested in the process of election of the society to be completed, as party respondent to the Writ Petition so as to enable him oppose the prayer of the petitioners in the Writ Petition. Since the Application was not opposed, the same is ordered.

4. Considering the nature of relief, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation was directed to get instructions in the matter on 21.11.2019. On 22.11.2019, arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and learned counsel for the 5th respondent (now impleaded).

5. The brief averments in the writ affidavit, as articulated by Sri Prasanth, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, are as follows:

6. The term of Office of the Managing Committee expired on 29.12.2018 and the present person-in-charge is conducting the affairs of the Society. There were large number of complaints that the Society had admitted bogus members and hence, objections were filed on 12.07.2019 pursuant to the notification of the 2nd respondent, dated 10.07.2019. Since the said objections were not considered, and the voters’ list was published on 12.07.2019, Writ Petition No. 16337 of 2019 was filed to scrutinize the voters’ list only after considering the objections filed by the petitioners. In the said Writ Petition, vide order dated 02.08.2019, this Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the pending objections before proceeding further. While so, some of the bogus members filed Writ Petition No. 21015 of 2019 to conduct elections to the Society by initiating the election process, wherein, once again, this Court passed orders on 01.10.2019 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the objections and then proceed with election process. It is further observed that if the objections had already been considered, the same should be informed to the election authority to take further steps, however, so far, no further action was taken except the 2nd respondent seeking information from the members to be furnished within the stipulated date. The petitioners assert that on 05.11.2019, detailed objections were furnished enclosing all the documents specifically stating the names of 40 to 50 members, who are otherwise ineligible to be continued in the voters’ list and also the details of the individuals who have sold away the plots without seeking permission. But unfortunately, pending consideration of the objections, the process of election was commenced on 06.11.2019 itself. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition No. 25114 of 2019, however, the same was dismissed as infructuous as it was reported that election notification was issued on 06.11.2019. Thereafter, on 15.11.2019, the petitioners made an Application to the 3rd respondent to furnish the information with regard to the details of the members who made Applications so far, pursuant to which, it was endorsed that only 313 out of 442 members of the Society had submitted the Applications.

7. The sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners is to the effect that the entire process of election is vitiated, for, the objections filed by his clients were not considered and further, while the 2nd respondent gave time vide Circular dated 31.10.2019, to submit information of