ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1.This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order made in E.O.P. No. 4/99 dated 16-1-2001 on the file of Election Tribunal, Principal District Munsif, Sattenapalli wherein the said E.O.P. was allowed setting aside the election.
2. Initially, W.P. No. 3181/2001 was filed and the same was admitted and status quo granted on 26-2-2001 and the same was in fact made absolute on 23-4-2001 and at the time of hearing, by order dated 22-8-2002, this Court directed the Registry to convert the writ petition into civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and post before the learned Judge hearing Civil revision petitions filed under the said provision. The civil revision petition, subsequent thereto on 14-2-2003, was admitted, and that is how the same is coming up for final hearing before this Court.
3. Addanki Sambasiva Rao, 4th respondent in the Civil revision petition, filed E.O.P. No. 4/99 on the file of Election Tribunal/Principal District Munsif, Sattenapalli under Section 61(3)(b) of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 to declare the election of Respondents 5 to 8 in the said E.O.P. as Office bearers of the Managing Committee to Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Nudurupadu, dated 6-2-1999, as void and for further appropriate reliefs. The Revision petitioners herein are Respondents 5,7 and 8 in the said E.O.P. On the respective pleadings of the parties, the Election Tribunal after recording the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marking Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.R-1 to R-41 and after framing the Points for consideration ultimately allowed the Election petition and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition was preferred by the respective respondents in the E.O.P referred to supra.
4. Sri Shivaji, the learned Counsel representing the Revision petitioners had taken this Court through all the factual details and also had raised an important question that the Election O.P. was not filed within time and though this question was not raised before the Election Tribunal, this being a pure question of law the same can be raised at any point of time and on this ground alone the Revision petitioners are bound to succeed. The learned Counsel also had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Election Tribunal and had commented that the principal question that the 4th respondent/petitioner in the Election O.P., has no locus standi since he is not a Member, had not been decided at all. The learned Counsel also had placed reliance on Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra, : [1974]3SCR31 , Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal and Ors., : AIR1999SC3101 .
5. Per contra, Sri Satya Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the 4th respondent submitted that the question of limitation was not raised before the Election Tribunal and the same cannot be allowed to be raised at the Revisional stage. The learned Counsel also further commented that the 1st petitioner herein and the 4th respondent have been trying to eliminate each other as reflected from different proceedings and series of litigations. The learned Counsel also submitted that all genuine members are to be made the Members. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the directions issued in W.A.No. 474/92 and also W.P.No. 34340/98. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to certain observations made in O.P.No. 2/94 on the file of the Election Tribunal. The learned Counsel also would submit that the term of the elected body is going to expire by February 2004 and if directions issued in the prior proceedings are not complied with by the Official respondents, again the same problem will prevail and the struggle between these two parties to eliminate each other from the list of the Members itself would create several complications. The learned Counsel would, maintain that in the light of the historical background of the prior litigations, it is a fit matter where suitable directions are to be issued. The learned Counsel also submitted that such directions definitely can be issued under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on Umaji v. Radhikabai, : [1986]1SCR731 , Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, : [1996]1SCR730 , Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd, : 1996(84)ELT401(SC) , State of Bihar v. Braj Kumar Mishra, : AIR2000SC106 , Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal, : (2002)ILLJ465SC , Achutananda Baidya v. Prafullya Kumar Gayen, : [1997]3SCR709 , Pfizer Ltd. v. Mazdoor Congress, : (1996)IILLJ891SC , Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., : AIR2003SC3044 , State, Through Special Cell, New Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and Ors., : (2003)6SCC641 , Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, : AIR2001SC3982 .
6. Heard both the Counsel.
7. The election in question was conducted on 6-2-1999 and the results were declared on -the very same day by raising hands. The 4th respondent - Addanki Sambasiva Rao, filed E.O.P.No. 4/99 on the file of Election Tribunal/Principal District Munsif, Sattenapally, on 30-8-1999 and as petitioner in the said Election O.P., he pleaded as follows:
8. It was pleaded that the Toddy Tappers Co-operative Society, Nudurpadu is a Primacy Co-operative Society and registered under A.P. Co-operative Societies Act and came into existence on 10-8-1976 and the Society is having Bye-laws and originally had eleven Members and subsequently the membership was increased to 214 and elections were conducted in the year 1994 and the same was challenged by the 5th respondent in the O.P. Jallela Venkateswara Rao by filing O.P.No. 2/94 and by the date of pronouncement of the orders in the said O.P., the term of office bearers was completed and as such the said orders in O.P.No. 2/94 became only a paper decision. It was also pleaded that the Society in question is having jurisdiction over Nudurupadu, Kandrika and Merikapudi and as such those villagers alone are entitled to become Members. It was further pleaded that the Respondents 1 to 4 by colluding with the other respondents got conducted the present election basing on the voters list of the year 1990 without considering the Members who are on the rolls as on the date of election and thereby violated Clause 9(4) of Bye-laws. The election was conducted not even following the directions of the High Court and genuine voters were deleted from the list and bogus persons were made as Members. It was further pleaded that the action of the Respondents 1 to 4 in conducting the election is not on proper lines.
9. The 2nd respondent filed a counter and the same was adopted by Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in the election O.P. It was pleaded in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent that the election dated 6-2-1999 was conducted in accordance with the law. Bye-laws and as per the directions of the High Court A.P. in W.P. No. 34340/ 98 dated 16-12-1998. The allegation that the number of Members had been increased to 214 had been denied. It was pleaded that in the election dated 6-2-1999, Respondents 5 to 8 were declared as office bearers of the Managing Committee, 5th respondent being the President of the said Society. Respondents 5 to 8 have become Members unanimously for their respective posts.
10. The 5th respondent, the 1st Revision petitioner, filed a counter which was adopted by respondents 7 and 8. It was pleaded that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition since he is not a Member at all of the Society. It was pleaded that the name of no genuine voter was deleted and no bogus Members were added in the voters list. The election was conducted as per the procedure and as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 34340/98. It was further pleaded that among the voters one Chattu Veeraswamy and M. Rama Krishna are residents of Munagapadu and other voters are residents of Nudurupadu which are within the limits of the Society jurisdiction. It was pleaded that the petition is frivolous and baseless and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
11. The Election Tribunal framed the following Points for consideration:
(1) Whether the election was conducted as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 34340/98?
(2) Whether the election of R-5 to R-8 as office bearers is valid one?
After recording evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, R.W.1 and R.W 2 and marking Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Exs.R-1 to R-41, the Election Tribunal had recorded several findings tracing the history of the prior litigations and had ultimately arrived at the conclusion that since the election was not conducted as per the directions of this Court in W.P. No. 34340/98, the said election dated 6-2-1999 cannot be held to be valid and accordingly allowed the election petition.
12. It is pertinent to note that the election in question was conducted on 6-2-1999 and the results were declared on the very same day. It is not in controversy that under Rule 49-B of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964, as it stood as on the date of election, the election to the office of the President of a Primary Society or a Member shall be questioned within a period of two months from the date of declaration of results of such election. Rule 49-B, as inserted by G.O. Ms. 147 (Co-op.IV), dated 9-3-1988 reads:
'A dispute relating to or in connection with any election to the office of the President of a Primary Society, a Committee, a member of a Committee or an officer shall be referred to the District Munsif or Subordinate Judge, as the case may be, within two months from the date of declaration of results of such election and such dispute shall be disposed off within a period of four months from the date of reference.'
The said provision, subsequent thereto was substituted by G.O. Ms. No. 37, Agriculture and Co-operation (Co-op.IV), dated 28-1-2002, and the present provision - Rule 49-B, reads as hereunder:
'A dispute relating to or in connection with any election to the office of the President of a primary society, a Committee, a member of a committee or an officer shall be preferred to the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the Society is situated within one month from the date of declaration of results of such election and dispute shall be disposed off within a period of four months from the date of filing of the dispute.'
No doubt, the period of two months had been reduced to one month by virtue of this amendment introduced to Rule 49-B. However, the fact remains that under the Rule as it stood as on the date of filing of the present election O.P., the period of limitation was two months. It is not in controversy that inasmuch as the election was conducted on 6-12-1999 and the results were declared on the very same day, the election O.P. filed on 30-8-1999 definitely is beyond the period of two months, and hence beyond the period of limitation. It is no doubt true that this question was not raised before the Election Tribunal, but in my considered opinion, it is the bounden duty of the Election Tribunal to go into the question of limitation, whether the same is raised or not, by the parties. Hence, on that ground, it cannot be said that the parties cannot be permitted to raise such a question at the Revisional stage. Reliance also was placed on the decisions Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra and Lachhman Das Arora v. Ganeshi Lal and Ors., referred (supra) in this regard. In view of the clear legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the election O.P. was filed beyond time and hence the same is clearly barred by limitation. The Revision petitioners, no doubt, are bound to succeed on this ground alone. However, the matter does not stop there.
13. The main grievance ventilated by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent is that these parties have been trying to eliminate each other from the field from a long time and there had been some prior litigations also and certain directions also were issued in W.A. No. 474/92 and also in W.P.No. 34340/98 to the Official respondents - Respondents 1 to 3 in the present civil revision petition, for reasons best known to them, are not implementing or complying with the directions and the inaction on their part is creating several complications in the smooth functioning of the Co-operative Society in question. Elaborate submissions were made relating to the powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to issue suitable directions in the interest of justice. Strong reliance was placed on the decisions referred Umaji v. Radhikabai and Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, (supra) in this regard. In the decision referred Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (supra), at Paras 22 and 23, the Apex Court while dealing with supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India held:
'Article 227 of the Constitution confers on every High Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction excepting any Court or Tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed forces. Without prejudice to the generality of such power the High Court has been conferred with certain specific powers by Clauses (2) and (3) of Article 227 with which were are not concerned hereat. It is well settled that the power of superintendence so conferred on the High Court is administrative as well as judicial, and is capable of being invoked at the instance of any person aggrieved or may even be exercised suo motu. The paramount consideration behind vesting such wide power of superintendence in the High Court is paving the path of justice and removing any obstacles therein. The power under Article 227 is wider than the one conferred on the High Court by Article 226 in the sense that the power of superintendence is not subject to those technicalities of procedure or traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction. Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.
The history of supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court, and how the jurisdiction has culminated into its present shape under Article 227 of the Constitution, was traced in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, : [1954]1SCR565 . The jurisdiction can be traced back to Section 15 of the High Courts Act, 1861 which gave a power of judicial superintendence to the High Court apart from and independently of the provisions of other laws conferring revisional jurisdiction on the High Court. Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, and then Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, were similarly worded and reproduced the predecessor provision. However, Sub-section (2) was added in Section 224 which confined the jurisdiction of the High Court to such judgments of the inferior Courts which were not otherwise subject to appeal or revision. That restriction has not been carried forward in Article 227 of the Constitution. In that sense Article 227 of the Constitution has width and vigor unprecedented.'
In the decision referred Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited (supra), the Apex Court held that the power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law and it cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law.
14. It is needless to say that when directions were issued in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition aforesaid, the Official respondents - Respondents 1 to 3 in the present civil revision petition, are bound to comply with the said directions. It is no doubt true that the Revision petitioners are succeeding in the present civil revision petition on the question of limitation. But, however, in the light of the fact that even the Election Tribunal, both while deciding O.P. No. 2/94 and also the present E.O.P.4/99, also specifically pointed out relating to the directions already issued by this Court in W.A. No. 474/92 and also in W.P. No. 34340/98, in the light of the powers which can be exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and also taking into consideration the historical background of the litigation, I am inclined to issue a direction to the Respondents 1 to 3 to comply with the prior directions already issued in W.A. No. 474/92 and also in W.P. No. 34340/98 in the interest of justice.
15. Thus, the civil revision petition is no doubt allowed setting aside the order impugned on the ground of limitation, but however by issuing the above suitable direction to Respondents 1 to 3 while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No costs.