Dismissed

The Malappauram District Co-Op.Bank Ltd. v. the Returning Officer and Another

Kerala HC19 Nov 2012WP(C)/12220/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that questions regarding breaches in the preparation of the electoral roll in a cooperative union election are to be agitated before the Registrar under Rule 136 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. The writs dismissing the bank's claim to voters list inclusion were disposed of, directing the Returning Officer to keep excluded bank votes in a separate box without counting them f

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; Returning Officer directed to keep votes of excluded bank employees in a separate box and declare the election result based only on the final voters list within ten days.

The Malappauram District Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs the Returning… — Election Law | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/28TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 12220 of 2010 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE RETURNING OFFICER, MANJERI CIRCLE CO-OPERATIVE UNION/ THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), MANJERI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

*2. THE MANJERI CIRCLE CO-OPERATIVE UNION, MANJERI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY/ ASST.REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DIST. ADDL R3: MANIKALA .V, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O.V.G.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SECRETARY,

¶12

*MAMBAD PANCHAYATH VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.M 550, MAMBAD, RESIDING AT VANDOOR, KAPPIL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.5.2010 IN I.A.6038 OF 2010)

¶13

ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1911-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 12280/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MNS

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 29.3.2010 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.3.2010 EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.3.2010 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.3.2010 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.3.2010 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.PG/AI/2009-2010 DATED 18.3.2010

¶20

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 22.3.2007 AND THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION.

¶21

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11.3.2008 AND THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION.

¶22

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.3.2009 AND THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FROM THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE UNION.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

P A TO JUDGE

¶26

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶27

W.P.(C).NOS.12220 OF 2010 &

¶28

12280 OF 2010

¶29

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Writ Petition 12220/2010 is filed for the following reliefs:

¶32

“ i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the lst respondent to include the employees working in the branches of the petitioner-Bank and functioning within the jurisdiction of the Circle Cooperative Union, Manjeri in the final voters list for the voting scheduled in Ext.P1 and

¶33

ii) Issue a writ declaring that the exclusion of the employees of the petitioner-Bank from the voters list by the lst respondent in the election notified as per Ext.P1 is without justification and illegal as there is no brake in the affiliation of the petitioner with the State Co-operative Union for the purpose of entitling the employees of the petitioner to cast their vote in the election to the Circle Cooperative Union.”

¶34

Writ Petition No.12280/2010 is filed seeking the

¶35

following reliefs:

¶36

-2-

¶37

W.P.(C).Nos.12220/2010 & 12280/2010

¶38

“i) i ssue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the lst respondent to include the employees working in the branches of the petitioner-Bank and functioning within the jurisdiction of the Circle Cooperative Union, Perinthalmanna in the final voters list for the voting scheduled in Ext.P1 and

¶39

¶40

Since the reliefs claimed in both the cases are similar,

¶41

these Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. It is contended by the petitioner-Bank that the petitioner has satisfied the requirements of law enabling the employees who are working in the branches to be included in the voters list for

¶42

-3-

¶43

W.P.(C).Nos.12220/2010 & 12280/2010

¶44

electing the employees representative. As such the exclusion of the employees who are working in the branch within the area of operation of the of the Circle Co-operative Union is wrong and illegal. Similar contention was raised in W.P.(C).No.12280/2010.

¶45

In both writ petitions this Court passed interim orders dated 20/4/2010 directing the respondents to permit employees of the petitioner-Bank included in the draft voters list to participate in the election scheduled to be held on 24/4/2010. This Court issued further direction that the votes cast by the said persons shall be kept separately in a box, that the result of the election shall not be published until further orders, that the Returning Officer shall file a report in this Court in a sealed cover stating the result of the election excluding the votes cast by the employees of the petitioner-Bank and that the details regarding the votes cast by the employees of the petitioner-Bank shall also be given separately and furnished to this Court in a sealed cover.

¶46

The learned counsel for the additional 3^rd respondent

¶47

-4-

¶48

W.P.(C).Nos.12220/2010 & 12280/2010

¶49

in W.P.(C).No.12220/2010 placed reliance on the decision of the

¶50

Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and another v. State of Maharashtra and others ((2001) 8 SCC

¶51

509). In paragraph 9 of the said decision the Apex Court held as follows:

¶52

“In view that the preparation of electoral roll is part of the election process and if there is any breach of the Rules in preparing the electoral roll, the same can be called in question after the declaration of the result of the election by means of an election petition before the Tribunal.”

¶53

6 . In the light of the said dictum laid down by the Apex

¶54

Court, this Court is of the view that the contention raised by the

¶55

petitioner in these writ petitions can be agitated before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 136 of the Cooperative Societies Rules. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage. The Returning Officer is permitted to declare the election results.

¶56

-5-

¶57

W.P.(C).Nos.12220/2010 & 12280/2010

¶58

The Returning Officer shall count the votes cast by the employees of the petitioner-Bank and after counting of such votes, he shall keep the same in separate box. All the votes cast by voters included in the final voters list alone shall be counted for the purpose of declaration of election results. It is made clear that the votes tendered by the employees of the petitioner-Bank shall not be counted. The Returning Officer shall declare the result of the election within ten days from today.

¶59

Writ Petitions are disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner-Bank to challenge the election before appropriate Forum, if so aggrieved.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶62

kcv.

The Malappauram District Co-Op.Bank Ltd. v. the Returning Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Malappauram District Co-Op.Bank Ltd. v. the Returning Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jimmy Joseph Vs Additional Registering Authority

Nalini.a.K. Vs State of Kerala

Chandrasekhara Pillai P. Vs Deputy Director, Department of Dairy Development

Dr. C.N. Jeevan Raj Vs Regionala Provident Fund Commissioner

Krishnankutty Vs Govt.of Kerala & Others

M.S.Raju Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission