K. Karunakaran vs State Co-Operative Election on 19 August, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 25043 of 2008(F)


1. K. KARUNAKARAN, S/O. THOLAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),

3. VYAPRI VYVASAYII CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :19/08/2008

 O R D E R
         Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
        ==================================
              W.P.(C)No.25043 of 2008
        ==================================
      Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008.


                     JUDGMENT

“CR”

Learned senior Government Pleader appears for

respondents 1 and 2. Notice to third respondent is

dispensed with in view of the nature of the

directions being issued hereunder.

2. Petitioner is a member of the third

respondent. Going by the law, it has to have a

member belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe communities in its committee. The third

respondent forwarded a resolution. The second

respondent has to forward it to the first

respondent to initiate action under Rule 35-A of

the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969,

hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”. Instead,

the second respondent issued Ext.P6 refusing to

forward it and taking the view that the vacancy

WPC25043/2008

-:2:-

need not be filled up. The law requires that one

seat in the committee has to be manned by a member

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

community. That is a statutory reservation. It is

not in the interest of any democratic institution

to leave any office vacant. The Assistant

Registrar cannot take the view that particular

election need not be conducted. Going by the

scheme of Rule 35-A of the Rules, it is for the

committee of the society to decide the date for the

election and once it fixes the date, the statutory

authorities have to run the Rule to its logical end

to have the election conducted.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Ext.P6

is quashed and it is directed that the third

respondent places a fresh resolution fixing a new

date for the election to that vacancy, but the

first respondent shall do the needful in terms of

law.

WPC25043/2008

-:3:-

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.

sl.26.8.