1 APHC010444582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NOs: 22661 & 22998 of 2025 W.P.No.22661 of 2025 Between: 1. P Vinod Kumar, s/o.P.Venugopal Rao, aged about 53 years, occ Assistant Registrar, R/o. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 2. SudaVenkateswaraRao,, S/o. S.Samudreswara Rao Aged About 60 years, Occ Court Officer, R/O D.No.7-547, Ff2, Khan Apartments, GowthanBudda Road, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. Aria Koteswara Rao, , S/o.A.Subba Rao, Aged About 45 years, occ Court Officer, r/o. Flat No.415, Haripriya Residency, Pedavedlapudi. 4. N.Peerusaheb, Aged About 55 years, Occ Dso, R/O.Court Officers Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. P.Satyanarayana, s/o. P.Narasimhulu, aged about 35 years, occ A.S.O, R/o. Flat No.B1, Devi Nihitha Heights, OppSbi, Medical Company Road, Undavalli-522501. ...Petitioner(s) And 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Principal Secretary Cooperative Department, Secretariat,Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, 2 Amaravati, Guntur district. 3. The Election Officer, High Court Employees Association M.Suryanadha Reddy (relieved) Aged about 55 years, Occ Deputy Registrar r/o. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu. 4. The assistant election officer, high court employees Association S. Shiva, Aged about 45 years, Occ Deputy Section Officer, R/o. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu. 5. The Assistant Election Officer, High Court Employees Association, K.S.V.Prasad Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ Deputy Section Officer, r/o. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF PROHIBITION to the Respondent Registrar General prohibiting him from proceeding further and interfering with the ongoing Election Process commenced vide Election Notification dated 13.08.2025 for the Election of the Members of the Executive Committee of the Respondent AP High Court Employees Association and quash the Proceedings Roc.No.1067/2025-Estt., dated 20.08.2025 and Roc.No.1067/ 2025-Estt., dated 21. 08.2025 as being illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Election Officer to proceed with the ongoing election process scheduled to be completed on 30.08.2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondent Registrar not to interfere with the ongoing election commenced vide Notification dated 13.08.2025 for the Executive Committee of the Respondent Society and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the Proceedings Roc.No.1067/2025-Estt., dated 3 20.08.2025 and Roc.No.1067/ 2025-Estt., dated 21.08.2025 forthwith and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to add the Sixth Respondent (Proposed Respondent) as Respondent in the above Writ Petition No.22661 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased permit the Petitioners to amend the prayer and also add Paragraph No.8A after Paragraph No.8 in the Writ Petition as under: Paragraph No.8A: It is submitted that the Election Officer is not appointed by the Registrar General, but vide Proceedings No.ROC.No. 1067/2025-Estt., dated 12.08.2025 he accepted the proposal of the Association to conduct the General Body for electing the Executive Body and for that purpose the names suggested by the Association and some among the Members were accepted and suitable permission was accorded to conduct the election in the premises of this Hon'ble High Court. The Registrar General as such, did not appoint any Election Officer or Assistant Election Officers. When the election was scheduled on 30.08.2025 one of the partiesJ.Gayathri Devi who filed Nomination to the post of President filed WP No. 22998 of 2025 with a misconceived prayer to direct the Registrar General not to permit the election process as the Election Officer tendered resignation. It is pertinent to state that at the time of acceptance itself, the Registrar also accepted the proposal of the Association to appoint the Assistant Election Officers I & II and therefore, the election can be proceeded with those officers. Unfortunately, the Assistant Election Officer-1 also resigned and the election can be proceeded with by the Election Officer-ll calling for the General Body for election to the post of President. This Hon'ble Court by Order dated 29.08.2025 in WP No. 22998 of 2025 was pleased to stay the election and the same may also be vacated. In the event the conduct of the election through Election Officer-ll is not acceptable, this Hon'ble Court may direct the General Body of Association to appoint an election officer to hold the election for the post of President or in the alternative appoint an Election Officer exercising parens patriae jurisdiction. General Body must be called as the term of the Executive Committee expired way long back in the month of May, 2025 and the interests of the Employees Association cannot be at pearl. The 4 Petitioners crave the leave of this Hon'ble Court to read the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Applications as part and parcel of the Writ Petition Affidavit also. ” ld Prayer: "Pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF PROHIBITION to the Respondent Registrar General prohibiting him from proceeding further and interfering with the ongoing Election Process commenced vide Election Notification dated 13.08.2025 for the Election of the Members of the Executive Committee of the Respondent AP High Court Employees Association and quash the Proceedings Roc.No.1067/2025-Estt., dated 20.08.2025 and Roc.No.1067/ 2025-Estt., dated 21. 08.2025 as being illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Election Officer to proceed with the ongoing election process scheduled to be completed on 30.08.2025 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 7 New Prayer: "Pleased to Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one In the nature of WRIT OF PROHIBITION to the Respondent Registrar General prohibiting him from proceeding further and interfering with the ongoing Election Process commenced vide Election Notification dated 13.08.2025 for the Election of the Members of the Executive Committee of the Respondent AP High Court Employees Association and quash the Proceedings dated 19.08.2025, Proceedings Roc.No.1067/2025-Estt. , dated 20.08.2025 and Roc.No.1067/2025-Estt., dated 21.08.2025 as being illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Election Officer to proceed with the ongoing election process scheduled to be completed on 30.08.2025or any other date as fixed by the Election Officer-11 or in the alternative permit the Respondent Association to call for General Body for the pending election of the President to appoint an Election Officer for the purpose of conducting election in democratic and secular manner with the best interest of the Employees Association or this Hon'ble Court may appoint an Election Officer suo moto exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 5 1. GP FOR COOPERATION W.P.No.22998 of 2025 Between: 1. J. Gayathri Devi, D/o J. Ramanaidu, Aged 57 years, Occupation Section Officer, Special Officers Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Registrar General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 2. Assistant Election Officer-ll, Deputy Section Officer, O.R Cell High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 3. Sri P. Vinod Kumar, s/o P. Venugopal Rao, 53 years. Assistant Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati. 4. Sri N. Satish Varma, Section Officer/Court Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati 5. Sri Syed Shanawaz, Deputy Section Officer, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 6. The Andhra Pradesh High Court Employees Association, represented by its Secretary, High Court Premises at Amaravati. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 and 2 in allowing/proceeding to conduct elections on 30.08.2025 in pursuance of the election notification in dated 13.08.2025, despite resignation of the Election Officer and the orders passed by this Honble Court in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.22661 of 2025 and also the orders passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the election notification dated 13.08.2025 and to pass 6 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent No.1 not to allow the respondent No.2 to conduct election to the 5TH respondent Association in pursuance of Election Notification dated 13.08.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 29.08.2025 in lA No.1 of 2025 in WP No.22998 of 2025 granted by this Hon’ble Court and consequently dismiss the Writ Petition with costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S SYAMSUNDER RAO 2. SHAIK MEERAVALI 3. N V SUMANTH 4. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the followingcommon order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) As the issues raised in both these Writ Petitions relate to the Elections of the Society, they are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 2. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation, appearing for the respondents in W.P.No.22661 of 2025. Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Syamsunder Rao, Sri 7 Shaik Meeravali, Sri N.V. Sumanth and Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P.No.22998 of 2025. 3. The Andhra Pradesh High Court Employees Association is a Public Society, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 2001 with Registration No.182 of 2021. This Society has also adopted its own set of by- laws and Rules and Regulations. The by-laws stipulate that there would be an Executive Committee, for the society, consisting of President, Vice President, Secretary, Organizing Secretary, Joint Secretary-I, Joint Secretary -II, Treasurer and 11 Executive Committee Members. The term of the Executive Committee is for a period of three years. 4. Earlier, an Executive Committee had been elected. It appears that the office of the President of the Society fell vacant, on account of the premature retirement of the incumbent President. Apart from this, the term of the Executive Committee was expiring and a fresh Executive Committee was to be elected. 5. Certain representations were made to the Registrar General of this Court, for the purpose of conducting the elections to the Executive Committee of the Society. In these representations, which are dated 25.07.2025, 28.07.2025 as well as 05.08.2025, the permission of the Registrar General was sought for conduct of election with a specific request to appoint the persons, mentioned in the representations, as Election Officer and one Assistant Election Officer. These representations were signed by the incumbent Secretary of the Society. The Registrar General, had there upon, 8 by proceedings, dated 12.08.2025, granted permission, for conduct of elections, by using services of Sri M. Suryanadha Reddy as Election Officer, Sri K.S.V. Prasad Rao and Sri S. Siva as Assistant Election Officer. The election was to be conducted between 10.00 a.m to 4.00 p.m on 30.08.2025. 6. The Election Officer, so appointed issued Notification, dated 13.08.2025, setting out the election programme and the posts which are available for election. 7. At that stage, certain complaints, against the Election Officer, were placed before the Registrar General. On account of these complaints, the Registrar General issued proceedings, dated 19.08.2025, directing the Election Officer to give up the pending election proceedings and to issue a fresh Election Notification. At this stage, the time granted for filing nominations and withdrawal of nominations was over and some of the candidates were said to have been elected as there were no other candidates for these posts. However, the election had to be conducted for the post of President and another post. The Election Officer, submitted his resignation, on 19.08.2025 itself. This resignation was accepted by the Registrar General, by his proceedings dated 20.08.2025. Thereafter, Registrar General issued fresh proceedings, dated 21.08.2025, accepting the request of the Election Officer to be relieved from the duty of the Election Officer. 8. It appears that Sri K.S.V. Prasad Rao also has withdrawn as Assistant Election Officer. 9 9. On 22.08.2025, five petitioners moved W.P.No.22661 of 2025. The 1st petitioner had filed his nomination for the post of President whereas petitioners 2 to 5 contend that they had been declared as elected Office Bearers and Committee Members as no other persons had filed their nominations and they are deemed to have been elected unanimously. The case of the petitioners was that the Registrar General could not have issued the proceedings, dated 19.08.2025, 20.08.2025 and 21.08.2025 as they amount to interference in the election process which had already been initiated by the notification of the Election Officer, dated 13.08.2025. It is contended that any objections raised against the Election Officer could only have been raised, by way of a petition, under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 2001 and such objections should not have been taken into account by the Registrar General. 10. While this Writ Petition was pending, another member of the Society, who had filed her nomination, for the post of president, filed W.P.No.22998 of 2025. The contention of the petitioner, in W.P.No.22998 of 2025, is that the entire election process has to be set-side as the original appointment of the Election Officer and the Assistant Election Officer is flawed and invalid. This contention has been raised on the basis of certain interim orders, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.22661 of 2025, raising certain doubts as to the authority of the Registrar General, to appoint an Election Officer or an Assistant Election Officer. The petitioner herein, would also contend that the election process would have to be restarted inasmuch as the Election 10 Officer and one of the Assistant Election Officers had already withdrawn and the sole remaining Assistant Election Officer would not be competent to conduct such elections. Consideration of the Court: 11. The affairs of the Society have to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Section 14 of the Act stipulates that every society shall have a committee, which is elected by a majority of the members present, and entitled to vote at an Annual General Body Meeting of the society which is held under Section 20 of the Act. Section 15 sets out the disqualifications of members from becoming members of the committee. While Section 14 mandates the requirement of an elected executive committee and stipulates the maximum term of such committee and other details, there is no provision in relation to the manner in which the election is to be conducted, that is, whether the election is to be conducted by the committee itself or by way of a duly appointed Election Officer, the time frame within such election is to be conducted etc. However, in the present case, the Rules and Regulations of the Society, which have been filed as material papers, in W.P.No.22998 of 2025 provide certain details. Rule 8(a) sets out the manner in which the election is to be conducted. 8. Election of Office Bearers and member of the Executive Committee a. The Office bearers and the members of the executive Committee shall be elected by the General body at the General body meeting of the Association to be held ordinarily in 11 the month of March every year. The General body will always be at liberty to change the date and hold the election in any subsequent month for special reason. The voting at the election shall be by secret ballot. The election shall be conducted by a returning officer nominated by the Executive Committee. ……. …… This Rule requires that the election has to be conducted by a Returning Officer, nominated by the Executive Committee. 12. The aforesaid Rule requires the outgoing Executive Committee to nominate a person as the Election Officer/Returning Officer. No material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that any such meeting of the outgoing Executive Committee had been held. The representations, submitted to the Registrar General, which have also been placed before this Court, do not disclose any such meeting being held. The tone and tenor of the said representations, signed by the incumbent Secretary, are to the effect that the Registrar General should appoint the Election Officer and the Assistant Election Officer. Acting on this representation, the Registrar General, stated in his proceedings, dated 12.08.2025, that permission is accorded to the Society to utilize the services of the person mentioned in the nominated representation as Election Officer and the person nominated in the representation as Assistant Election Officer. The Registrar General also permitted another 12 member of the Society acting as a second Assistant Election Officer though such a request does not appear to have been made in the representations. 13. Thus, the Executive Committee failed to nominate any person as the Election Officer/Returning Officer. The representation signed by the Secretary, without mentioning whether such a representation is on a resolution of the committee or otherwise, requested the Registrar General to appoint the Election Officer and Assistant Election Officer. The proceedings of the Registrar General show that the Registrar General had only accorded permission to conduct the election by utilizing the services of the persons mentioned in the said proceedings, dated 12.08.2025. 14. In the view of this Court, there is no valid appointment of any person as an Election Officer or an Assistant Election Officer. In the circumstances, the conduct of elections by a person, who has not been appointed or nominated by committee of the society, in a meeting held for such purpose, or even by circular, cannot be treated as a valid election process. 15. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel in W.P.No.22661 of 2025 relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported as Supreme Court Bar Association and others vs. B.D. Kaushik with Supreme Court bar Association vs. A.K.Manchanda1. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering certain issues raised in the course of the election of the Committee Members of the Supreme Court Bar 1 2011 AIR (SCW) 5804 13 Association had held that the Supreme Court Bar Association has a special place in the legal system. These observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, do not in any manner, aid the petitioners in the present case. 16. The petitioners in W.P.No.22661 of 2025 seek a direction to prohibit the Registrar General from interfering with the ongoing election process, which commenced with the election notification, dated 13.08.2025, and to quash the proceedings of the Registrar General, dated 19.08.2025, 20.08.2025, and 21.08.2025 and consequently, direct the Election Officer to proceed with the election process. The petitioners in W.P.No.22998 of 2025 seek a declaration that the continuation of the election process by the Registrar General and the Assistant Election Officer-II is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Election Notification, dated 13.08.2025. 17. As the Election Notifications has been issued by a person who cannot act as the Returning Officer/Election Officer, in the absence of a nomination by the Executive Committee, the entire election process is flawed and requires to be set aside. Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioners had also contended that this Court cannot interfere in an election process which has already commenced and that any grievance against such an election process can only be raised by way of the petition under Section 23 of the Act, which enables members to approach the Principal District Judge of the concerned District, in the event of any disputes between members of the Society. 14 18. The Constitutional Courts, whenever faced with a situation in which complaints are raised against an ongoing electoral process, have refrained from interfering with such process on the ground that elections are the life blood of democracy and the medium through which the will of the people is expressed. There can be no quarrel with this principle, on the basis of which the constitutional Courts have restrained themselves from interfering in any electoral process. However, in the present case, there is no valid election at all inasmuch as the election was being conducted by the persons who have not been appointed, in accordance with the rules of the society. 19. In the circumstances, both these Writ Petitions are disposed of holding that the entire election process itself is vitiated and it would be appropriate that a fresh election process is initiated after the present Executive Committee, nominates a person as the Election Officer. Any Assistant Election Officer appointed to assist the Election Officer, can only discharge such functions, as may be specified, in the nomination of the said Assistant Election Officer. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J _______________ T.C.D.SEKHAR,J RJS 15 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NOs: 22661 & 22998 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Dt: 26.09.2025 RJS