Suneesh Prabhakaran vs Muttom Service Co-Operative Bank … on 30 December, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 38138 of 2008(M)


1. SUNEESH PRABHAKARAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
                       ...       Respondent

2. ELECTORAL OFFICER

3. RETURNING OFFICER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :30/12/2008

 O R D E R
                 THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                          W.P.(C)No. 38138 OF 2008
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 30th day of December, 2008

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner, a member of the first respondent bank,

submitted Ext.P3 objections to the list of eligible voters as published

by the Society through the Returning Officer for the purpose of the

election to the Committee of that Society. Ext.P2 bye-laws describes

the area of operation of the Society and states in Clause 5(a), the

eligibility for membership. Any person of more than 18 years of age

and who has the necessary qualification in terms of Kerala Co-

operative Societies Act (KCS Act) and Rules and the bye-laws, and,

residing or owning immovable properties within the area of operation

of the Society, is entitled to be a member. Therefore, any objection

with reference to the area of operation can be considered only if

there is a specific assertion that the person about whom such

objection is raised does not reside and does not hold any immovable

property within the area of operation. Without these two specific

assertions being made qua, each person who is saddled with such

allegation, the Returning Officer has no obligation to look into any

such objections. Exts.P3 and P3(a) read together do not disclose

WPC : 38138/08
-:2:-

any assertion by the petitioner regarding either among these two

limbs though the assertion has to be of both. All that is stated in

Ext.P3 is that people who are residing outside the area of operation

and enlisted in Ext.P3(a) are included in the list. I do not therefore

find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Ext.P4

by which the Returning Officer has refused to consider the

objections.

Obviously, if the petitioner has any further objections in that

regard, such question can be considered, on facts, only in a proper

election dispute under Section 69 of the KCS Act. Without prejudice

to that course, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
ttb 30/12