IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21707 of 2009(G)
1. HARI.S.NAIR,AGED 33 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KATTAPPANA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Respondent
2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASST.REGISTRAR OF
4. THE RETURNING OFFICER(UNIT INSPECTOR,
5. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION
For Petitioner :SRI.JOICE GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.21707 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of August, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a member of the 1st respondent Bank.
Election to the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent Bank was
notified as per Ext.P1 and the election is scheduled to take place on
08/08/2009. The petitioner submits that in terms of the
notification, a preliminary voters list was published and the final
voters list was published on 20/07/2009.
2. The petitioner states that in the preliminary voters list,
copy of which was served on him, his name was included and on
that basis, he filed his nomination on 27/07/2009. However, by
Ext.P6 dated 28/07/2009, the Returning Officer informed him that
his nomination is rejected as his name and number were not
included in the final voters list published on 20/07/2009.
Immediately on the next day itself, the 1st respondent Bank issued
Ext.P5 to the petitioner informing that omission to include in the
final voters list published on 20/07/2009 came to the notice of the
WP(C) No.21707/2009
-2-
Bank only on 28/07/2009, and that the Bank has already intimated
the omission to the Returning Officer. In this communication, the
Bank has also stated that the omission is happened as the work of
preparation of the final voters list was outsourced, and that the
petitioner has all the qualifications to contest in the election.
Despite Ext.P5, his nomination was not accepted, and therefore, the
writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions have been obtained by the learned
Government Pleader, who also confirms that it was only on account
of an omission on the part of the 1st respondent that the petitioner’s
name happened to be not included in the final voters list.
Admittedly, the omission was happened at the hands of the 1st
respondent, and not for any reason, which is attributable to the
petitioner or to the Returning Officer.
4. Having regard to these facts, the petitioner, as a
member, is entitled to have submitted his nomination and it is for
the Returning Officer to ensure and satisfy that he is qualified to
contest in the election. In the peculiar facts of the case as noticed
above, I direct the Returning Officer to accept nomination of the
WP(C) No.21707/2009
-3-
petitioner and verify whether he is eligible to be a candidate and if
so, permit him to be a candidate in the election.
5. The petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment
before the Returning Officer, who thereupon shall, in the presence
of the petitioner himself, verify his eligibility and take further action
on that basis.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg