JUDGMENT
Patnaik, J.
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the expression “the application shall be accompanied by a list of relevant records on which the dispute is based ………. for deciding the dispute”, occurring in Rule 67 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (for short ‘Cooperative Rules’) casts a mandatory duty on the petitioner to file the documents as per the list along with the petition as held in Gopalakrishna Panicker v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) Ker LT 495. The learned single Judge while interpreting that provision found that a copy of the order declaring the election was not filed along with the election petition. He held that this declaration forms the basis of the petition, and Rule 67(i) requires all annexures to be produced along with the petition. When the very basis of the election petition is not produced, along with it as required, despite the mandate contained in Sub-rule (i) of Rule 67, the petition has to fail for non-compliance with this mandatory requirement”.
2. The petitioner, a member of the second respondent co-operative society, filed a petition under Rule 67 of the Co-operative Rules, challenging the validity of the election of respondents 4 to 14 as members of the Board of Directors of the respondent-society. No relevant records were filed though it is submitted that a list of the same was filed along with the petition. Defendants 19, 20, 22 and 24 in the petition who are now arrayed as respondents 19, 20, 22 and 23 the original petition, raised a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the petition. The two preliminary objections that were raised for consideration are —
(i) The plaint is not accompanied by declaration of results held on 29-6-1995 as required under Rule 67(i) of the Kerala Co-operative Rules;
(ii) No proper court-fee or stamp as per rules are affixed in the election petition.
The arbitrator by Ext.P1 order dated 28-11-1995 upheld the first objection by relying on the decision in Gopalakrishna Panicker’s case, 1990 (2) Ker LT 495, and rejected the petition He ruled out the second objection.
3. When the matter came up before a learned single Judge, he opined that there are conflicting decisions with regard to the question as to whether the above expression lays down any mandatory rule or it is only directory in nature. It was observed by him that in Bhaskara Panicker v. Co-operative Tribunal, 1984 Ker LT 1043, it was held that the said rule is not mandatory as there is no provision either in the Act or the Rules prescribing the consequences of non-production of the list of relevant records along with the application. It was also held that dismissal of the application on that ground cannot he said to be mandatory. In Gopalakrishna Panicker v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) Ker LT 495, the learned single Judge has held that non-compliance of Rule 67(1) is fatal to the elect ion petition. A Division Bench of this Court in John v. Nalumakkal S. Co. Bank, 1991 (2) Ker LT 527 : 1992 (1) ILR Ker 261, held that non-production of the certified copy of the resolution authorising the Secretary to file an arbitration case is not mandatory and it is only directory. Learned Judge therefore referred the case for a decision by a Division Bench of this Court under Section 3 of the Kerala High Court Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no mandatory duty is cast on the petitioner to produce the documents or records along with a petition under Rule 67 as held by the arbitrator. The expression “list of relevant records” does not mean any of the documents as such listed therein.
5. The word ‘list’ in common parlance means making mention of a number of items one after the other. The expression “list of relevant records” in the Rule can therefore mean the mention or enumeration of the items of records or documents on which the petitioner relies to prove the allegations. This expression does not mean the documents as such which are enumerated in the list. It is not incumbent on the part of the petitioner to file the documents as per the list along with the petition. The latter part of Rule 67 clearly says that whenever necessary, the Registrar may require the party referring the depute to him to produce a certified copy of the records on which the dispute is based and such other statements or records as may be required by him before proceeding with the consideration of such reference. Thus, it is open to the Registrar to call for those records on which the dispute is based from the concerned authorities of the Society or the Returning Officer.
6. The learned single Judge in Gopalakrishna Panicker’s case, 1990 (2) Ker LT 495, in interpreting Rule 67 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules held that the mandatory rule therein is to produce the document on which the dispute is based as well as a receipted challan to evidence payment of the fees fixed under Clause (a) of Sub-rule (7) for deciding the dispute along with the petition. The interpretation of the expression “list of relevant records” did not arise for consideration directly in that case. The relevant portion of the rule reads as follows:
“The application shall be accompanied by a list of relevant records on which the dispute is based and a receipted challan to evidence payment of the fees fixed under Clause (a) of Sub-rule (7) for deciding the dispute”.
It contains two clauses. The first clause relates to the submission of a list of “relevant records on which the dispute is based” and the second part is a “receipted challan to evidence payment of the fees”. Both the clauses are to be read disjunctively inasmuch as a list of relevant records does not mean the documents as such. No rule of the Co-operative Societies Rules lays down that the petitioner is required to file all the documents or records along with the petition failing which the petition is liable to be rejected. So far as the mandatory rule in the other part of the aforesaid rule, namely, the production of a receipted challan, is concerned there can be no doubt that without the accompaniment of a challan in evidence of payment of fees along with the petition, the same cannot be entertained like a suit. The interpretation by the learned single Judge in Gopalakrishna Panicker’s case, 1990 (2) Ker LT 495, with regard to the mandatory requirement of the production of a challan appears to be correct. But, the interpretation of the rule regarding the requirement of production of the document or record along with the petition does not appear to be correct.
7. The rejection of the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 67 of the Co-operative Societies Rules by the first respondent-Arbitrator cannot, therefore, be sustained in law, for the reasons stated above.
8. We, therefore, allow this petition and set aside the order (Ext.P1). The first respondent-Arbitrator is directed to dispose of the petition, A.R.C.1/95, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after giving due notice to all the parties concerned. No costs.