ORDER
S. Dasaradharama Reddy, J.
1. When the W.P.M.P. came up for hearing both sides agreed that the writ petition itself can be disposed of.
2. Election to the Managing Committee of the Pinnelli Fishermen Cooperative Society (for short ‘the Society’) was scheduled to be held on 15-7-1994. On 14-7-1994, by telegraphic order, the Government stayed the election. The petitioners filed writ petition challenging the validity of Rule 22-AAA of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) and for issue consequential direction to the authorities to hold election forthwith from the stage where the election was stopped.
3. The writ petition was admitted on 25-7-1994, interim suspension of the Government order was granted, and the W.P.M.P. was adjourned to 28-7-1994 to enable the Government Pleader to produce the record and also to enable Mr. G. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the proposed respondents – Ex- President and Ex-Secretary of the Society to file counter. On 28-7-1994, the Government Pleader produced the records. Mr. G. Krishna Murthy filed counter on 12th August, 1994.
4. From the record, it is clear that the Government stayed the election under Rule 22-AAA of the Rules at the instance of the Ex-President and Ex-Secretary, who alleged that 225 members, who were enrolled on 7-6-1994 as members are not shown in the voters list published on 30-6-1994 and that the Election Officer has not called for objections before publication of the voters’ list. The record also shows that the Ex-President of the Society handed over the records to Election Officer on 24-6-1994 and that the Election Officer has published draft voters’ list on 24-6-1994 showing 310 members deleting members not eligible to vote and invited objections if any within one week. On 30-6-1994, the Election Officer published the final voters’ list showing 310 members. About 21 members filed representation to the Election Officer on 4-7-1994 saying that they ought to have been included in the voters’ list as they were admitted on 7-6-1994. To the same effect, the Ex-President also gave representation.
5. Under Sub-rule 3(a) of Rule 22-B of the Rules which governs the procedure for election to the Fishermen Co-operative Society among other societies for weaker sections, in order to be eligible to be a voter, one should be member of the Society 45 days prior to the poll and satisfy other conditions of eligibility, if any, laid down in bye-laws. As the poll was on 15-7-1994, the 225 members who were admittedly enrolled on 7-6-1994 are not eligible to be voters. The allegation of the respondents that the Election Officer has not published the draft voter’s list or invited objections is not borne out from record. No doubt, the Election Officer ought to have published the final list on 1-7-1994 by when the seven days time limit for filing objections expires. But by this the respondents 4 to 31 cannot be said to have suffered any prejudice since the record shows that the objections were filed only on 4-7-1994 and it is not their case that they filed objections on 1-7-1994. Even otherwise, this is only technical breach since the 225 members are not eligible to be voters. Thus, there is no substance in the representation filed by the Ex-President and Ex-Secretary before the Government and in seeking stay of the election. Further Rule 22-AAA requires the Government to record the reasons in writing. The order does not disclose any reasons. For these reasons, the telegraphic order of the Government passed on 14-7-1994 staying the election to the Managing Committee of the Society is quashed. In view of this, I need not go into the question of validity of Rule 22-AAA.
6. Then the next question is what is the consequence of quashing the order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chandrasekhara Rao, contends that in similar circumstances a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 91 of 1992 dated 6-2-1992 directed the Election Officer to conduct the Election from the stage where it was stopped. On the other hand, Shri G.Krishna Murthy, vehemently contends that as per Rule 22-AAA of the Rules, once the postponement of the election is made, the earlier notification shall stand rescinded and, therefore, fresh notification has to be made determining the eligibility of voters in accordance with Rule 22(3) of the Rules. He also relies on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 641 of 1992 dt.6-8-1992. Both these decisions do not apply since they decide the effect of the suspension of the order passed by the Government. In the instant case, when the order passed by the Government is set aside, the last limb of the Rule does not come into play. Otherwise, the fruits of success in the writ will not be reaped by the petitioner since the respondent would have achieved what he wanted viz., to see that the 225 members, who were enrolled beyond the scheduled date, participate in the elections. In my view, the last limb of the Rule 22-AAA applies only if the order passed by the Government is held valid. Otherwise it will lead to startling results. Any person or persons, who have no prospects of success in the election may file application before the Government just before the date of poll making allegations which they know to be incorrect, as in the instant case, and obtain order from the Government staying elections and can obtain success in election held later taking advantage of subsequent enrolment of voters, eventhough ultimately it is found that there is no substance in their representation. The Rule cannot be interpreted to yield such result and such an interpretation will defeat the object of Rule 22(3).
7. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the Election Officer shall proceed from the stage where the election was stayed. Rule 22 including Rule 22-B does not prescribe any particular time gap from the date of notice to date of poll in case of stoppage of poll. But Rule 22 clause 7 sub-clause n(2) gives the guidance. It says that when the poll is stopped due to any reason, the next date of poll shall be so fixed which shall not be less than 10 days and shall not be more than 15 days from the date of notice. On the same analogy, the Election Officer is directed to fix poll by giving notice which shall not be less than ten days and more than 15 days from the date of notice. The petitioner shall have costs from the respondents 30 and 31 at whose instance the elections were stayed. Advocate’s fee Rs. 500/-.
