State Government Gazetted Officers Co-operative House Building Society Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderl. narasimha reddy, j.1. elections to the managing committee of the petitioner-society were held on 06.02.2008 and a committee was elected. the 2nd respondent filed e.o.p. no. 2 of 2008 before the a.p. co-operative tribunal, visakhapatnam, under section 62(4) of the a.p. co-operative societies act (for short 'the act'). during the pendency of the o.p., he filed i.a. no. 95 of 2008 under section 151 of c.p.c., with a prayer to restrain the general body of the society from taking or implementing any policy decision. the application was opposed by the petitioner. through its order, dated 30.08.2008, the tribunal allowed the i.a. the same is challenged in this writ petition.2. smt. bobba vijaya lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the i.a. filed by the 2nd respondent is totally outside the scope of the tribunal under section 62 of the act. she contends that while the challenge is to the election of the managing committee, the 2nd respondent sought to cripple the functioning of the general body itself. she contends that there is absolutely no justification for the tribunal in passing the impugned order.3. learned government pleader for cooperation and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that the effort of the 2nd respondent was only to ensure that no irregularity takes place under the administration of the committee, whose election is challenged. it is urged that the committee was superseded on an earlier occasion and on being elected, it is proposing to conduct the same activities, which were found fault with.4. the 2nd respondent challenged the election of the managing committee of the society on certain broad and general grounds, such as the validity of the voters' list, be it, in the context of inclusion or exclusion of members. even if the contention of the 2nd respondent is accepted and the tribunal finds that the election was vitiated in any manner, at the most, it may result in setting aside the election of the committee. an elected individual or body cannot be pre-i eluded or prevented from discharging the functions through an interlocutory order filed in an election petition. such a course is unknown to adjudication of the election disputes. an additional factor, in the instant case, is that the temporary injunction was sought against the entire general body. i.a. no. 95 of 2008 is completely outside the purview of the election petition and the tribunal ought not to have entertained it.5. the writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. Elections to the Managing Committee of the petitioner-society were held on 06.02.2008 and a committee was elected. The 2nd respondent filed E.O.P. No. 2 of 2008 before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, under Section 62(4) of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'). During the pendency of the O.P., he filed I.A. No. 95 of 2008 under Section 151 of C.P.C., with a prayer to restrain the general body of the society from taking or implementing any policy decision. The application was opposed by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 30.08.2008, the Tribunal allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the I.A. filed by the 2nd respondent is totally outside the scope of the Tribunal under Section 62 of the Act. She contends that while the challenge is to the election of the Managing Committee, the 2nd respondent sought to cripple the functioning of the general body itself. She contends that there is absolutely no justification for the Tribunal in passing the impugned order.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submit that the effort of the 2nd respondent was only to ensure that no irregularity takes place under the administration of the committee, whose election is challenged. It is urged that the Committee was superseded on an earlier occasion and on being elected, it is proposing to conduct the same activities, which were found fault with.

4. The 2nd respondent challenged the election of the Managing Committee of the society on certain broad and general grounds, such as the validity of the voters' list, be it, in the context of inclusion or exclusion of members. Even if the contention of the 2nd respondent is accepted and the Tribunal finds that the election was vitiated in any manner, at the most, it may result in setting aside the election of the Committee. An elected individual or body cannot be pre-I eluded or prevented from discharging the functions through an interlocutory order filed in an election petition. Such a course is unknown to adjudication of the election disputes. An additional factor, in the instant case, is that the temporary injunction was sought against the entire general body. I.A. No. 95 of 2008 is completely outside the purview of the election petition and the Tribunal ought not to have entertained it.

5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.