IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20561 of 2009(M)
1. JACOB, S/O. RAPPEL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE RETURNING OFFICER/FISHERIES
... Respondent
2. NAYARAMBALAM MATSYA THOZHILALI VIKASANA
3. AJITHA JOSEPH,
4. UTHAMAN K.R.,
5. GIRISH,
6. K.V.DAMODARAN,
7. A.G.FALGUNAN, S/O. GOVINDAN,
8. BEENS,
9. P.K.REGHU,
10. K.S.RAJAN,
11. P.B.RAJALSU,
12. RAJESH AYYAPPAN,
13. LEENA JOY,
14. K.B.LEELADHARAN,
15. C.T.VIJAYAN,
16. SIVAN K.R.,
17. SISUPALAN T.K.,
18. K.K.SUKUMARAN KOMATH,
19. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :31/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.20561 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
When the matter was taken up, at the request of the
counsel for the petitioner, respondents 3 to 19 are deleted
and the additional 20th respondent is renumbered as addl.
3rd respondent.
2. Heard the counsel for the 2nd respondent and also
the counsel for the additional 20th respondent.
3. Election to the Managing Committee of the 2nd
respondent Society is scheduled to be held on 2.8.2009.
Petitioner as a member of the society filed his nomination.
That was rejected by the Returning Officer as per Ext.P3
proceedings. The reason stated is that the petitioner is a
defaulter to the addl. 3rd respondent Society. It is
challenging Ext.P3 on the basis that, the petitioner has not
availed of any loan or stood as a surety for any loan taken
WP(c ).No.20561/09 2
from the addl.3rd respondent and therefore rejection of
nomination is illegal, that the writ petition is filed. The
prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 and
to direct the first respondent to accept the nomination
submitted by the petitioner and permit him to contest in the
election to the managing committee of the 2nd respondent.
4. On notice issued, the addl.3rd respondent has filed a
counter affidavit, It is stated that the first respondent had
issued Ext.R20 communication requesting the addl. 3rd
respondent to intimate as to whether any one of the persons
in the list attached thereto is a defaulter to the Society. It is
stated that in reply to the said letter, they issued Ext.R20(a)
stating that one Jacob, Arackal has outstanding dues.
According to the respondent such a letter was issued based
on the entry in the Flood Relief Scheme register dated
25.2.1986 maintained in his office. It is stated that after the
said letter was given, on 17.7.2008 the first respondent
enquired about the correctness of the contents of the
WP(c ).No.20561/09 3
aforesaid letter and that the petitioner also had approached
the addl. 3rd respondent seeking clarification contending that
he was not a defaulter. It is stated that there upon he verified
the register and in the register all that was mentioned is that
one Jacob, Arackal is a defaulter. According to the addl.3rd
respondent, there was nothing to conclude that petitioner
herein is the Jacob, Arackal mentioned in the register. It is
stated that, thereupon he clarified the position to the first
respondent.
5. From the facts as pleaded in the counter affidavit
referred to above, it is evident that, although one Jacob,
Arackal is a defaulter, as per the entries in the Flood Relief
Scheme Register maintained by the addl. 3rd respondent, there
is nothing available to conclude that the said Jacob, Arackal is
the petitioner herein. If that be so, it is unfair and illegal to
reject the nomination submitted by the petitioner and he is
entitled to be given an opportunity to contest in the election.
WP(c ).No.20561/09 4
6. In view of the above quashing Ext.P3, I direct the first
respondent to accept the nomination submitted by the
petitioner and allow him to contest in the election to be held
on 2.8.2009. However, it is clarified that the judgment is
rendered based entirely on the materials available in this writ
petition and the findings in the judgment will not stand in the
way of any of the aggrieved party to contest the eligibility of
the petitioner in appropriate proceedings.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
vi (ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE