Madan Mohan Punchhi, J - (1.) We have to tread through a chaotic state of affairs in relation to the elections of committees in thousands of cooperative societies functioning in the State of Andhra Pradesh in order to pave way for a just solution. Our journey begins thus.
(2.) Under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, cooperative societies of three categories have been set up; Primary Co-operative Societies, District Co-operative Societies and Apex Co-operative Societies. The members of Primary Co-operative Societies elect their committees wherefrom emerge electoral colleges to further elect the committees and office bearers in the district and then to the Apex Co-operative Societies. To begin with the Act provided the life of committees to be two years but by statutory amendment, it was increased to three years. By amendment Act 16 of 1989 the life period was increased to five years. Shortly thereafter, the Government of the day thought of reducing the period of the committees to the original three years and so by means of Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 1990, the period was reduced to three years. That Ordinance was questioned in the Andhra Pradesh High Court by means of a large number of writ petitions on identical grounds and those in a batch were heard and disposed of by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 8783 of 1990 and batch cases on 18-9-1990. The High Court upheld the Ordinance to the extent of reduction of the life period of committees of co-operative societies to three years. Both the Judges constituting the division bench in the High Court in their separate orders, but almost in the same sound and tone, quashed various Government orders whereby the management of the committees were ordered to be put under the exclusive control of Government officers. In order to ensure the smooth and efficient functioning of the co-operative societies, both the Judges of the division bench however directed the Government to appoint other fit and suitable men as described in terms, including erstwhile members of the Managing Committee who had acquitted themselves creditably in the Fast, to take charge of the affairs of the Committee till newly elected committees could take over. There is a slight difference in the range covered for the purpose by the two Hon'ble Judges of the division bench towards selecting personnel for the interregnum. The High Court however at that juncture was never in doubt that by its decision there had not been left any elected committee of any Co-operative Society and that necessitated directions regarding the interregnum to countermand the effort of the State by means of the Ordinance to put each society exclusively in charge of its officers.
(3.) The judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 8783 of 1990 was questioned in S.L.P. No. 13786 of 1990 before this Court. In the meantime Ordinance No. 5 of 1990 got replaced by Amending Act No.13 of 1990. Writ Petition No. 1076 of 1990 was also moved in this Court by some petitioners attacking the validity of the Amending Act and in particular sections 3 and 5 thereof. Both these matters were taken up together by this bench and on hearing learned counsel on both sides, were disposed of by requiring of the State to hold elections within a period of six months commencing from the date of commencement of the Amending Act 13 of 1990, which date was June 30, 1990. It had then been expressed that having regard to the existing exigencies, the proviso to section 4(2) of the Act whereunder time could be extended, need not be put to use. By the disposal of those matters this Court declined to entertain the challenge to the Amending Act and in particular to sections 3 and 5 thereof as also to the judgment of the High Court leaving the question of law decided by the High Court open. Yet for the purposes of the High Court its interpretation of the law remained.;