Can't Exercise Writ Jurisdiction To Interfere In Election Process Once It Has Commenced: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Brief Facts of the Case

It was the case of the petitioner that he was Member of respondent Bank which was registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. The Board of Directors of the Bank consisted of not more than 15 members and were elected from among the eligible members. Grievance of the petitioner was that election for electing three Directors of respondent bank was being conducted without there being any regulations for how to conduct elections.

The Board of Directors were appointing the very same person as Election Officer and paving way to elect the very same Directors who retired, on rotation.

In view of the irregular process adopted by the Election Officer, Board of Directors residing in Visakhapatnam Urban Area were being elected as Directors for the last 25 years again and again though they incurred disqualification as per the norms of the Reserve Bank of India.

The Election was scheduled on 28.2.2022. The Election Officer was completely guided by the present Board of Directors and is not conducting the elections as per the Act and bye-laws. Election was not being conducted in transparent manner. Hence, the Writ Petition.

The respondents contended that once election process had already commenced, Courts could not interfere with the election process under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Ruling of the Court

The court relied on the decision in Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commission, A.P. (2001), it was held that once an election process had been set in motion, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the election process.

In another decision Gangarapu Ushaiah v. District Collector (Cooperation), Medak District (1992), it was held as:

"It is well settled that when once an election process has begun, this Court should not ordinarily interfere in the said election process."

Thus, the Court was not inclined to interdict the election process, which had already commenced. The petitioner was given liberty to agitate any grievance with regard to finalization of voters' list of the Bank or breach of, or non-compliance with, mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 before the Tribunal concerned. The Writ Petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Yelamanchili Satya Krishna Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AP) 76

Click Here To Read/Download Order