AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Reddeppa Reddi, J.—Writ Petition 16165 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 10-11-1992 in I.A.No. 261 of 1992 in O.P. 3 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Kota, Nellore District. Writ Petition 16124 of 1992 is directed against the order dated 10-11-1992 in I.A.No. 260 of 1992 in O.P. 2 of 1992 on the file of the same Court.
In both the cases the facts are similar and the question of law involved is common. Therefore, I propose to dispose them of by a common order.
The matter, arising under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ''the Act''), relates to election of the President and the Vice-President of the Managing Committee of Kurugonda Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Kurugonda, Ogili Mandal, Nellore District (for short ''the Society''). There are eleven constituencies in the Society. Election to elect members to the Managing Committee of the Society was held on 21-1-1992. The petitioner in Writ Petition 16165 of 1992 contested from Constituency No. 4 against one Sri Edagali Narasa Reddy. He polled 90 votes and Narasa reddy polled 70 votes. Consequently, he was declared elected as a Member of the Managing Committee of the Society. The petitioner in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992 contested from Constituency No. 1 against one Katta Ravinder Reddy. He polled 151 votes and Ravinder Reddy polled 54 votes. Consequently, he was declared elected as a member of the Managing Committee of the Society. Likewise, other members were elected from the remaining nine constituencies. Then, two women members were nominated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, as provided under proviso to Section 31 of the Act. Thereafter, in the election held on 1-2-1992 the petitioner in Writ Petition 16165 of 1992 was elected as the President with a margin of one vote. So also, the petitioner in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992 was elected as the Vice-President with a margin of one vote.
The 2nd respondent in Writ Petition 16165 of 1992 who has not contested either from Constituency No. 4 or for the office of the President filed O.P.3 of 1992 before the 1st respondent, questioning the election of the President. So also, the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992, who has not contested either from Constituency No. 1 or for the office of the Vice-President filed O.P.2 of 1992 before the 1st respondent, questioning the election of the Vice-President. It may be mentioned here that the 2nd respondent, viz., Indiramma in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992 contested from Constituency No. 11 against one B. Munuswamy; but she was defeated. Questioning the election of Munuswamy and for a declaration that she should be declared as elected from Constituency No. 11, she filed O.P.1 of 1992 before the same Court.
The election of the President and the Vice-President was sought to be set aside on the sole ground that the election of Munuswamy, who has been declared elected from Constituency No. 11 is illegal and had the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992 been declared as elected, she would have voted against the writ petitioners, in which case they would not have been elected as the President and the Vice-President.
The petitioner in Writ Petition 16165 of 1992 filed I.A.No. 261 of 1992, raising a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of O.P.3 of 1992. So also, tine petitioner in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992 filed I.A.No. 260 of 1992, raising a similar preliminary objection. They based the applications on the following grounds:
(i) No malpractices are alleged either in the election of the President or the Vice-President.
(ii) The petitioners in O.P.Nos.3 and 2 of 1992 who are not candidates to the election of the President and the Vice-President have no locus standi to question the election of the writ petitioners,
(iii) There is no cause of action to file the election petitions.
Those applications were resisted on the ground that the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992, who has filed election O.P.1 of 1992 has fair chances of success and the result in that petition will have direct bearing on the election of the President and the Vice-President. The learned District Munsif, holding that the issue relating to cause of action for filing the election petitions could be gone into at the time of trial, dismissed the applications by separate orders dated 10-11-1992. Hence these two writ petitions.
Cause of action is essential for initiation of any legal proceeding. There should be an act of commission or omission attributable to the opposite parry so as to initiate any legal action against him. Cause of action set up by a party should be real and factual, which if proved or admitted will entitle him to the relief prayed for. No malpractices are alleged against the writ petitioners either in the elections they contested for membership or Presidentship or Vice-Presidentship. The irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been committed in the election in Constituency No. 11 have no bearing on the election of the President and the Vice-President. Moreover, what would be the result in O.P.1 of 1992 is not certain. Assuming that it ends in favour of the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992, still it cannot be a ground to question the election of the President and the Vice-President. I am of the considered view that a future event, the happening of which is uncertain, cannot give rise to cause of action for instituting a legal proceeding. Therefore, O.Ps.3 and 2 of 1992 cannot be sustained on the basis of cause of action set up therein.
Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Act dealing with the election dispute of the President reads:
"Every dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election to the office of President of the Primary Co-op. Society referred to in Sub-section (5) of Section 31 or to a committee of such class of societies as may, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, be specified by the Government in this behalf and referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 31, shall be referred for decision to a District Munsif having jurisdiction over the place where the main office of the society is situated, and his decision thereon shall be final."
A reading of the above, leaves no doubt whatsoever that there should exist a dispute in relation to or in connection with his election. There is no dispute whatsoever with regard to the election of the President or the Vice-President. From this view point also, the very institution of O.P.3 of 1992 and 2 of 1992 is without any basis.
That apart, it becomes necessary to see that even if the 2nd respondent in Writ Petition 16124 of 1992, who has filed election petition 1/92, is declared elected as a member from Constituency No. 11, whether such declaration dates back to the date of election i.e., 21-1-1992? Whether the result in O.P.1 of 1992 will have any effect on the election of the President and Vice-President held on 1-2-1992? Sub-section (2) of Section 107 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that-
"Where by an order u/s 98 the election of a returned candidate is declared to be void, acts and proceedings in which that returned candidate has, before the date thereof, participated as a member of Parliament or as a member of the Legislature of a State shall not be invalidated by reason of that order, nor shall such candidate be subjected to any liability or penalty on the ground of such participation."
In the absence of a similar provision either in the Act or the rules made thereunder, the same principle has to be applied to the elections held under the Act. Moreover, the decision of the District Munsif u/s 61 (3) (b) of the Act could only be prospective in the absence of specific provision to the contrary. Thus, the result in O.P.1 of 1992 can under no circumstance set at naught the election of the President and the Vice-President held on 1-2-1992.
Sri M.P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent tries to sustain the impugned orders on the basis of exception to the ''defacto doctrine'' enunciated in Gokaraju Rangaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, He relies upon the passage:
".... The defective appointment of a de facto Judge may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he may be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no concern or consequence to the Judge except as a Judge." (para 15)
The case on hand does not relate to any defective appointment. Therefore I find it difficult to apply the above principle to the present case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions must succeed. Accordingly, they are allowed and the 1st respondent, viz., the District Munsif, Kota, is directed to dismiss O.P. No. 3 of 1992 and O.P. No. 2 of 1992 on his file as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs.