01. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent vide proceeding No. 5023/ I-IV / 2014 dt.19.12.2025 in order to conduct elections on 26.12.2025 to the Andhra Pradesh State Fishermen Co-operative Societies Federation Limited (in short „A.P.C.O.F‟). is bad, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of A.P.C.S.Act, 1964 and rules made there under and also offends Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from democratic principles in the matter of elections and to pass such other order which this Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

02. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is President of District Fishermen Co-operative Society (D.F.C.S.), Kurnool. The A.P.C.O.F. is a registered society. It consists of thirteen (13) districts within the state of Andhra Pradesh as it members. The Co-operative structure in the State of Andhra Pradesh is a three tier system i.e., primary level, district level and state level in the department of fisheries. The persons elected as Presidents of the primary societies are members of the D.F.C.S. of the respective district. The presidents of D.F.C.S. are the members of the A.P.C.O.F. The apex body i.e., A.P.C.O.F. is headed and managed as non-official person incharge by the respondent No.2. Since the term of the respondent No.2 as non-official person incharge of A.P.C.O.F. expired on 02.12.2025, the Government took a decision in its order G.O.Rt.417, dated 11.12.2025 appointing the petitioner as non- official person in charge managing the affairs of the A.P.C.O.F. for a period of six (06) months with effect from the date of assuming the charge or till the elections are conducted and elected Managing Committee assumes charge or whichever is earlier. Since 11.12.2025, the petitioner has been managing the affairs of A.P.C.O.F. In fact the Government of India issued a gazette notification vide S.O.No.5777 / E, dated 15.12.2025 notifying 26 districts in the state of Andhra Pradesh for all purposes. The D.F.C.S. elections are not conducted in some of the districts, especially Srikakulam and Vizianagaram. The District Collector of Srikakulam issued election notification and election notice vide proceedings No.599 / B / 2024, dated 21.12.2025 with election schedule to conduct elections of D.F.C.S., Srikakulam on 23.12.2025. Apart from the above fact, still the persons in-charge hold the position in D.F.C.S. and some of the Primary Fishermen Co-operative Societies. Under these circumstances, no proposal to be made for the purpose of conducting election to A.P.C.O.F. Therefore, the notification of the respondent No.2 vide proceeding 5023 / I-IV-2014, dated 21.12.2025 is contrary to law. The respondent No.2 appointed P.Kiran Kumar, Divisional Co-operative Officer, Vijayawada as election officer to conduct elections to A.P.C.O.F. by exercising power under section 13 (3) (a) of the A.P.C.S., 1964 r/w Rule 22 (b) of A.P.C.S. Rules, 1964. The election notification issued by the respondent No.2 is based on the list of members to vote furnished by the General Manager on 22.12.2025. On the very same day, the Election Officer issued notification calling for the nominations for the purpose of elections on 26.12.2025. In the absence of the elected / incumbent Managing Committee of the Society under Rule 22 (2), the Registrar and the Collector of the District shall be the election authority for the society or class of societies. The Registrar is the competent authority to appoint an election officer for each society. In turn, the election officer has to issue notification on 22.12.2025 calling for the records for the purpose of scrutiny and withdrawal of nominations and publication of valid nomination duly allotting symbols respectively on 26.12.2025. The respondent No.2 ought not to have issued election notification on 19.12.2025 in violation of Rules 22 (2) r/w section 31(3) (a) of the A.P.C.S.Act, 1964. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

03. When the matter has been taken up for hearing on 24.12.2025 in the lunch motion, the hearing could not completed and moreover, the learned Government Pleader for Fisheries requested time for further instructions. At that juncture, a list of persons eligible for voting in the elections scheduled on 26.12.2025 has been submitted to this Court. The list contained members in respect of the Districts of Srikakulam and Vizianagaram as well.

04. As such the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the election for the district of Vizianagaram is scheduled to be held on 30.12.2025, whereas the list contains the name of the member from that district as well and therefore, it exemplifies the breach of rules in continuing with the election. Even with regard to the district of Srikakulam, she submitted that the election scheduled to be held on 23.12.2025 had been postponed to 24.12.2025 and that district was also included in the list on the same day of the election and therefore many irregularities in the proposed election were committed. She further submitted that the entire process of election for the apex body is designed in a hurry manner by designing the schedule for receipt of nomination, scrutiny, withdrawal process, holding election and declaring the result on a single day i.e., 26.12.2025.

05. After hearing the learned Special Government Pleader for Fisheries and the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court gave a direction, under these circumstances, to hear the matter as a first case on 26.12.2025 and the proceedings for election were directed to be with-held till the decision is taken by this Court after hearing the matter. As such, today the matter has been taken for hearing.

06. The special Government Pleader for Fisheries submitted that the process of election once commenced, the writ petition cannot be filed to stall the process of election. She further submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to stall the election. She further submitted that there are no irregularities in the process, since election for the district of Srikakulam was completed and the sitting member of the District of Vizianagaram has tenure up to 06.01.2026 and is a valid member to participate in the election. To buttress her argument, she referred to the bylaw No.4 of the society which says that the representative of the President of the society shall continue to so act till the name is sent to A.P.C.O.F. by the society. She further submitted that the rules did not disqualify the sitting member to act, including to vote in the election. She further submitted that as per Rule 33 (12)(b), schedule of time for every step of election has been indicated and therefore, the same has been followed in fixing different times on the same day to hold the election and therefore, the proposed election on 26.12.2025 is as per rule. She further submitted that it is for the election officer to decide on the objections, if any raised to the list of members as per Rule 22 (2) (b) (iii).

07. She also stated that if there is any violation or breach of rules, the aggrieved person can raise the election dispute before the appropriate authority, but cannot stall the process of election. In this regard, she placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Boddula Krishnaiah and another Vs. State Election Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh((1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 416), particularly to observation of the Supreme Court at para No.11:

                  “11.Thus, it would be clear that once an election process has been set in motion, though the High Court may entertain or may have already entertained a writ petition, it would not be justified in interfering with the election process giving direction to the election officer to stall the proceedings or to conduct the election process afresh, in particular when election has already been held in which the voters were allegedly prevented from exercising their franchise. As seen, that dispute is covered by an election dispute and remedy in thus available at law for redressal”.

08. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the process of election commenced by issuing of notification for election, when there is no properly chosen group of members to vote, in view of circumstances in the present case, the election cannot be proceeded. She further submitted that when the election notification was issued in respect of the District of Vizianagaram, the election officer steps into the shoes of the President whose election is scheduled and till the election is completed, the President holds the post for name sake and is no more the President.

09. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no objections are called for by the Election Officer in the proceeding publishing the list of members on 24.12.2025 and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit the objections and moreover, the next day being 25.12.2025, public holiday, it was not possible. Therefore, she submitted that the objection of the learned Special Government Pleader for Fisheries that it is the election officer who has to take a decision on objection regarding list of members is not tenable.

10. After hearing both the sides, two main aspects emerged. One regarding the legality of the list of members, particularly two members, the district of Srikakulam and more particularly district of Vizianagaram, to vote in the election and also for the same reasons, district of the legality of the list of the members released. Further, the other important aspect is whether it becomes the election dispute to be raised before the appropriate authority under the Act and Rules or this Court can interfere in the process of election at this juncture.

11. In so far as the eligibility of the members in the list is concerned, the rules clearly lay down procedure for calling for objections and decision thereon. An objection can be raised before the election officer and the same has to be decided by the election officer. The copy of the list of members placed before this Court does not contain any statement calling for objections. However, the party may submit objection as it is not prohibited and rules also permit. So far, no objection has been submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the matter is pending before this Court and no time was available, objection was not submitted. Validity of the objections decides validity of the election.

12. The process of election commenced with issuance of the notification. Therefore, the role of the Court to interfere is minimal. If the members voted have no authority to vote, the same has bearing on the result in the election. The process of election can also be challenged when the result is not in accordance with law adversely affecting the election. Keeping in view the observation of the Supreme Court in the decision in Boddula Krishnaiah and another Vs. State Election Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh (supra), it is just and necessary to allow the election to be conducted. Since the result of the election is subject to the challenge as to its legality, it can be challenged by way of election disputed or in any other mode permitted under law.

13. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the points of objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the qualification / eligibility of the persons who are in the list and also the legality of holding the election on any other ground(s), this Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to raise objections on all available grounds as indicated above, at appropriate stage before appropriate forum as per law.

                  There shall be no order as to costs.

                  Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.