- (1.) Originally this revision petition was filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the learned Agency Munsiff, Aswaracpet, in C.M.A. No. 1 of 1982, which arose cut of an injunction granted earlier being vacated by the Superintendent of Excise, filed in the Election Petition No. 4 of 1982 challeng ing the legality of the election to the Tribal Arrack Co-operative Society, Vinayakapvram. When the matter came up for hearing, on a preliminary objection raised by the Counsel for the respondents that the Revision is incompetent, the learned Counsel for the petitioner orally applied for permission convert this Revision Petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution, of India and the same was not opposed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the same was ordered so the revision now stands converted into one under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) The brief circumstances under which this Revision arises are now set out. The first petitioner Sri Punem Verika taswamy was nominated as the Chief promo, tor of the society styled Tribal Arrack Co-Operative Society, Vinayakapuram on 20th February, 1982 by the Superintendent of Excise, Khammam, in his capacity, as Registrar designate under section 31 (1)(a) of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is averred by the iirst petitioner that though the elections to the society,were scheduled on 30th june 1982, hut the Election Officer did not conduct the election at the Vinaya kapuram school building, and instead a fake election was shown to have beer held and Sri Angothu Vaseram Nageswar Rao 1st respondent Tierein was declared elected as the president of the Society and the respondents 2 to 11 as Directors. The election is said to bs based on the fake membership of 31 members, as they were not regular members of the society. In pursuance of the said take election, when the respondents tried to take the management of the Society, the petitioners filed Election Petition NO. 4 of 1982 before the Superintendent of Excise a nd obtained interim injunction on 9th July, 1982 in an Interlocutory Application filed therewith. However, the second respondent hare, in filed apetition vaca te injunction and after hearing both the parties the same was vacated on 9th August, 1982. Aggrieved against that,C.M. A.No. 1 of 1982 was preferred in the Court of Agency Munsiff, AswaraOpet, who had granted injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents had filed W.P.No. 7905 of 1982 in this Court challenging the order of injunction on the ground inter alia that the Agency Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the C.M.A. A learned single Judge of this Court disposed of that writ petition on 2nd November, 1982 with a direction .to the Agency Munsiff to dispose of the O.M.A.No.1 of 1982 itself within ten days therefrom. The injunction, however, was not disturbed. "Thereafter 'the learned Agency himself dismissed the G.M.A. Hence this Revision petition.
(3.) The contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner are: (1) The Court of Agency Munsiff (Agency Tahsildar} has no jurisdiction to enterrain the C.M.A. It is the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, who is competent to entertain the said appeal and not the Agency Munaiff, In fact the learned Agency Munsiff having held tha the lad no jurisdiction, further sought to dispose of the appeal or merits,. which is illegal and void- (2) The name of the first respondent, Angothu Voseram Nageswara Rao, who is said to have been declared elected as president, does not figure in the list of valid nominaticns issued by the Election Officer, and if so, even the purported declarations of the name of the first respondent as President elect, is void abinitio, apart from being fake. (This aspect of the case has not been dealt with by the lower appellate Court.);