IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16228 of 2008(F)
1. C.P.GOMATHY AMMA, KAVUNKAL HOUSE,`
... Petitioner
2. VALSALA ORASANNA KUMAR.M.NO.6287
3. SYAMALA.C.V.GOVINDAN M.8050
4. C.CHANDRAMATHI,M.4598, SALLY HOME, S.NAL
5. P.G.THRESIAMMA, M.5614,MARATHAMTHARA VEE
6. P.S.SATHI DEVI, M.16887, SNAH,
7. A.K.THANKAMMA BAHULAYAN, SAJU VILLA
Vs
1. PARUR MEHILA CO.OP.SOCIETY LTD.N.1289M N
... Respondent
2. THE RETURNING OFFICDER/CO.OP.INSPECTOR
3. THE ELECTRICAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :10/06/2008
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).Nos.16228 & 16506 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in both cases are members of the first
respondent co-operative society, which is a Vanitha co-operative
society. They submitted nominations for the election which has
been declared. Those nominations have been rejected. This is
under challenge. For the sake of brevity, I would refer to the
paper book of W.P(C).16228/08.
2. Exts.P2 and P2(2) were forwarded by the society to the
Returning Officer as the form prescribed for the nomination.
This is evident from Ext.R6(a)/2, which, among other things,
contains signatures attributed to the President and Secretary of
the society. The nominations submitted by the petitioners were
defective in as much as the declaration in the form of an
affidavit, which is Ext.P2(2), was not signed by any of them.
WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08
Page numbers
3. There are certain disputes between the parties regarding
the veracity of what is projected as the resolution approving the
form of the nomination. The petitioners have a version, the
contesting private respondents have another version. Learned
senior Government Pleader states that the two sheets exhibited
as Ext.R6(a) were forwarded with covering letter of the
President and Secretary. The President is one of the petitioners
in these writ petitions.
4. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that
Rule 35 (3) (c) (ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules,
1969 does not prescribe any affidavit in support of the
nomination paper and therefore, the rejection of the nominations
is invalid. All that is provided in Rule 35 (3) (c) (ii) is that the
nomination paper should contain whatever is stated in that
provision. It does not mean that the society cannot prescribe any
nomination paper which may call for disclosing further materials
or adopting any further procedure including filing of affidavit.
WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08
Page numbers
5. A reading of Rule 35 (3) (c) (i) will show that the
nomination of the candidates for the election shall be made in
the form prescribed by the society, which, on application, shall
be supplied by the committee to any member, free of cost.
Therefore, it is the society which has to prescribe the nomination
paper.
6. There is dispute between the parties regarding the veracity
of the resolutions attempted to be placed on record. In writ
jurisdiction, I shall not, therefore, go into that issue.
7. But what is more important is that one among the
petitioners is the President of the immediately outgoing
committee and many other petitioners are members. Going by
Rule 35 (3) (c) (i), nomination forms have to be obtained from the
committee of the society. The petitioners, obviously, obtained
the nomination forms from the committee of the society. They
have no case that what is exhibited as two sheets (Exts.P2 and
P2(2)) were not given to them from the office of the society. At
WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08
Page numbers
any rate, they did not, then and there, raise any dispute
regarding the correctness of the nomination paper issued to
them by the committee. So much so, it is impermissible for them
to contend that the nomination paper did not contain the
affidavit which is Ext.P2(2).
8. Therefore, the rejection of the nomination cannot be
interfered with on any jurisdictional issue. Be that as it may, the
disputes surrounding the other aspects of the acceptance of
nomination may be germane for any election dispute if at all
raised. It is clarified that this judgment does not touch on such
issues.
Subject to the aforesaid, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.11/6.
WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08
Page numbers
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
——————————————-
W.P(C).No.16228 OF 2008
——————————————-
Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008
O R D E R
Adv.Sri.P.Ramakrishnan appearing for the first respondent
states that the documents as directed in the earlier order are
made available. He will provide them at the time of
consideration of the writ petition. Senior Government Pleader
appears for respondents 2 and 3.
WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08
Page numbers
I.A.Nos.6778/08 & 6820/08
Perused the affidavit. Heard. Allowed.
Impleading petitions ordered today brings seven among the
candidates whose nominations were accepted. Learned senior
Government Pleader submits that altogether 12 nominations
were accepted even as per Ext.P3.
Learned Government Pleader will make available the files
of the Returning Officer, including those in relation to the
acceptance and rejection of the nominations.
Post on 6.6.2008.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge
kkb.4/6.