HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.37612 of 2014 Date:06.12.2014 Between:
Kollam Veera Venkata Ganesh, S/o Sri Adinarayana and 42 others.
. Petitioners And:
The State of A.P., reptd by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Hyderabad and four others.
. Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri N.Siva Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Fisheries (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not including the names of petitioner Nos.1 to 42 in the admission register and also in the Voters’ list of respondent No.5- society, as illegal and arbitrary.
The Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another V. State of Maharastra and others[1] held that even the preparation of electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and that the election process having been set in motion, the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll.
This Court in Sri Manganellore Veeraraghavan Vs. District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District and others (Writ Petition No.15905 of 2006) has held as under:
“The ratio that could be culled out from the judicial precedents discussed above is that the word ‘election’ has a far wider connotation than mere final result of the election and it takes within its sweep the entire process of election commencing from the election notification till declaration of the results, that once the election process is commenced, individual interests should yield to larger public interest of completing the election process as per the schedule, relegating the party raising the disputes pertaining thereto to a properly constituted election petition and that no Court, including the High Court and the Supreme Court, can interfere even where the authority concerned passes erroneous orders except where such erroneous orders have the effect of impeding or hindering the process of election. In the light of these firmly established legal principles, this Writ Petition is not maintainable because acceptance of nomination of respondent No.5, even if illegal, has not hindered the process of election, but, it is a step to further the election by conducting poll. In this process, even if respondent No.3 has committed a patent illegality, the petitioner shall have to wait till the completion of the election before availing his remedy under Article-243-
O(b) read with Section 233 of the Act by presenting an election petition before the authority concerned.”
I n Dhulipalla Narendra Kumar Vs. A.P.Co-
[2]
Operative Tribunal this Court has followed the ratio laid down in the above-noted two judgments and declined to interfere with the election process.
In view of the ratio laid down in the above-noted judgments, I am not inclined to interfere with the election process at this stage and issue a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the election. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the result of the election, they are entitled to question the same by availing the remedy of Election Petition.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, W.P.M.P.Nos.47062 and 47063 of 20141 are dismissed as infructuous.
06th December 2014 DR
[1] (2001) 8 SCC 509
[2] 2011(1) ALT 163
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY