Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses Nurse's Election Writ: Private Society Disputes Cannot Invoke Article 226
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that elections to a private nurses' association, even when conducted by a state-appointed officer, carry no public law element warranting a writ of mandamus.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay, sitting singly at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, dismissed two writ petitions filed by D Manjula Devi, a Staff Nurse at Kurnool Government General Hospital, challenging the conduct of elections to the Andhra Pradesh Government Nurses Association (Regd. No. 21/1973). The petitioner had been denied the opportunity to file her nomination for the post of President of the State Executive Council at elections held on 26 and 27 October 2024. The court found that the Association is a purely private body registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that the dispute over its internal elections does not involve any public law element. The mere fact that the state had appointed an Election Officer to oversee the process did not transform the Association's functions into public duties amenable to a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The Andhra Pradesh Government Nurses Association was formed in 1973 by nurses working in government hospitals across the state. It was registered under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860 with Registration No. 21/1973, and the State Government accorded it recognition vide G.O.Ms.No.358 dated 5 June 2008. The Association has approximately 4,000 members. Its stated aims are to redress the grievances of members and to extend fraternity among them.
On 22 September 2024, the Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Respondent No. 2) appointed the District Cooperative Officer, NTR District, Vijayawada as Election Officer (Respondent No. 3) to conduct elections to both the District Executive Committees and the State Executive Council of the Association. The Election Officer issued an election schedule on 5 October 2024.
Before the elections, a consensus meeting was held on 1 October 2024 at the Regional Office, KDCCB, Vijayawada to address anomalies in the bye-laws. Manjula Devi attended that meeting and her signature appears at Sl. No. 30 among 61 members present. She then contested for the post of Secretary of the District Unit, Kurnool in elections held on 23 October 2024, and lost.
Despite losing at the district level, Manjula Devi claimed entitlement to contest for the post of President of the State Executive Council. She relied on Article V of the Association's bye-laws, which she said permitted a senior member with more than five years of continuous membership to contest for State Executive posts. When she approached Respondent No. 3 on 26 October 2024 to file her nomination, it was not accepted.
W.P. No. 24577 of 2024 was filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the rejection of her nomination as illegal and the entire election process as a nullity. W.P. No. 692 of 2026 was filed seeking to declare the appointment of the Election Officer and the conduct of elections under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 as without jurisdiction, since the Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act and not as a cooperative society. Both petitions sought fresh elections conducted by a competent authority under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001.
The Jurisdictional Question: Public Duty or Private Dispute?
The respondents raised a threshold objection: the Association is a private body and does not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution. The petitioner's sole answer to this was that the State Government had appointed Respondent No. 3 to conduct elections, and therefore the writ petitions were maintainable.
The court rejected that argument. Justice Vijay observed that the aims and objectives of the Association — advancing the economic, social and cultural well-being of its members and regulating their relations with employers — indicate that it is purely private and caters only to the welfare of its own members. The appointment of a state official as Election Officer did not alter the nature of the society, nor did it mean that the Election Officer was discharging public duties or public functions.
The court drew on the Supreme Court's decision in St. Mary's Education Society v. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava, (2023) 4 SCC 498, which examined at length when a writ petition can be maintained against a private body. The High Court extracted the Supreme Court's conclusions, which held that the scope of mandamus is limited to the enforcement of a public duty, and that there must be a public law element in any action sought to be enforced through Article 226. Individual wrongs or breaches of mutual arrangements without any public element cannot be rectified through a writ petition.
The Supreme Court in that case had also held that even if a body discharges a public function, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of that public duty. A body may be amenable to writ jurisdiction for some of its functions while remaining outside it for others. The functions of the Association here — conducting internal elections, managing membership, and electing office-bearers — were found to be entirely within the realm of private law.
Why the Election Officer's Appointment Did Not Change the Analysis
The petitioner's argument in W.P. No. 692 of 2026 went further: she contended that the appointment of an officer under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 to conduct elections for a society registered under the Societies Registration Act was without jurisdiction and therefore void. The election notifications, the declaration of results in Form-XII dated 23 October 2024 and Form-XXIV dated 27 October 2024, were all sought to be set aside on this basis.
The court did not examine the merits of this jurisdictional argument. The threshold finding — that the dispute lacked a public law element — was sufficient to dispose of both petitions. Since the Association is a private body and its elections do not involve the discharge of any statutory or public duty, the question of which authority was competent to conduct those elections remained a matter of private law between the members and the Association.
The court also noted the conduct of the petitioner. She had attended the consensus meeting on 1 October 2024, signed the consensus document, and then contested the District elections on 23 October 2024. It was only after losing at the district level that she challenged the entire process. Respondent No. 3 stated in his counter affidavit that the petitioner had accepted the appointment of the Election Officer and the election notification before contesting.
The Bye-Law Dispute on State Executive Eligibility
On the specific grievance about the rejection of her nomination, the respondents relied on Article XIX, bye-law IV of the Association's bye-laws. That provision states that the State Executive Committee is elected by indirect method at the Annual General Body meeting by elected delegates from the District units. The voter list for the State Executive election was prepared from the 111 elected members from the District units.
Since Manjula Devi had lost the District election, she was not an elected delegate and therefore not a member of the general body constituted for the purpose of electing the State Executive. Respondent No. 3 maintained that her nomination was rightly not accepted on this basis.
The petitioner's counter was that Article V of the bye-laws entitled any member with more than five years of continuous membership to contest for State Executive posts. The court did not resolve this conflict between the two bye-law provisions on the merits, having already found that the writ petitions were not maintainable.
Separately, the court noted that on 26 October 2024 it had given oral directions to accept the petitioner's nomination. Respondent No. 3 stated in his additional counter affidavit that no written communication of those directions was given to him, and that he was answerable to the general body for continuing the elections. He tendered an unconditional apology for not adhering to the oral directions of the court.
Outcome
Justice Nyapathy Vijay dismissed both W.P. No. 24577 of 2024 and W.P. No. 692 of 2026 by a common order dated 6 May 2026. The court held that the dispute concerns elections to a private society, that there is no statutory duty involved, and that the functions in question are not in the realm of public duty or public functions. Writ petitions could not be maintained on these facts. No order as to costs was made. All miscellaneous petitions pending in the proceedings were directed to stand closed.