Dismissed

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

Kerala HC19 Nov 2012WP(C)/23310/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the voters list of a cooperative bank and sought declaration that ineligible persons should be removed before an election. The Court ruled that the election cannot be quashed before its declaration and directed the Joint Registrar to hold an enquiry to remove ineligible persons.

What did the court decide?

Joint Registrar directed to hold enquiry within two months and direct removal of ineligible persons; Returning Officer to secure votes of listed persons in a separate box.

M.S.Raju Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission — 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. 23310 of 2012 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.S.RAJU, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.SIVARAMAN,MULLOOR, PADUA P.O MATTACKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-PIN-686 001.

¶12

3. THE AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.3857, MOOZHOOR P.O., MANJAMATTOM KOTTAYAM-686 503, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 3857, MOOZHOOR P.O., MANJAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM-686 503 REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT.

¶14

*Addl.5. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G)KOTTAYAM) THE AKLAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3857 MOOZHOOR-PO., MANNAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM -686503.

¶15

*Addl.6. THE RETURNING OFFICER (ARBITRATION AND EXECUTION INSPECTION -1 INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) KOTTAYAM) THE AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.3857 MOOZHOOR-PO., MANJAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM – 686503.

¶16

*ADDL. R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01/11/2012 IN IA 14583/2012.

¶17

R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 23310 of 2012 (K)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT	P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/9/2012 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/9/2012 GIVEN BY SRI.THOMAS JOSE VARACHERIL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/9/2012.
EXHIBIT	P4:	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2907/2012 DATED 03.11.2012 PASSED BY THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM.
RESPONDE	NTS	' EXHIBITS:

¶24

R3(a):	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT BANK.
R3(b):	COPY OF THE ELECTION SCHEDULE DATED 29.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
R3(c):	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.10.2012 SERVED TO THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
R3(d):	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.10.2012 SERVED TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶29

W.P.(C) No.23310 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 19^th day of November 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the persons who do not possess the qualification under clause 5 (a) of the bye laws of the bank are not eligible and entitled to continue as a member of the bank and direct the 2^nd respondent to remove them from the membership and for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take action for removal of ineligible persons from the membership of the respondent society before taking steps for the conduct of election and for a direction directing the first respondent to prepare and finalise the list of members of the bank after enquiry and in accordance with the byelaws of the bank and to remove the ineligible persons from the voters list of members and for other incidental reliefs.

¶33

It is submitted by the petitioner that decision of the 4^th respondent to conduct election with the voters list which includes ineligible persons is illegal. Petitioner and others submitted detailed representations before the 2^nd respondent

¶34

w.p.(c) No.23310/2012 2

¶35

pointing out the details of ineligible persons mentioning their names and address. Exts.P1 and P2 are copies of representation.

¶36

Petitioner also submitted complaint to the first respondent pointing out the irregularities and illegalities in granting membership and the preparation of voters list. Ext.P3 is the copy of the representation dated 28.9.2012. According to the petitioner, more than 900 persons were given membership to the Society by the present Committee that they are persons who are residing outside the area of operation and are ineligible to get membership. It is pointed out that person permanently residing within the postal areas of Lakkattoor, Kozhuvanal, Ayakunnam, Kootoppada, Chengalam, Kanjiramattom, Anikkad, Aruvikuzhy etc are out of the area of operation of the society and as such are ineligible to be members and not entitled to the benefits and rights of the membership. It is submitted that no action has been taken by the first respondent to redress the grievance of the petitioners. In the above circumstance the writ petition is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶37

During the pendency of the writ petition, the

¶38

w.p.(c) No.23310/2012 3

¶39

election has been notified. The election is scheduled to be conducted on 25.11.2012.

¶40

The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of the 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 509). In paragraph 9 of the said decision the Apex Court held as follows:

¶41

“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.”

¶42

6 . In the light of the said dictum laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition can be agitated before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Rule 136 of the Co-operative Societies Rules. Therefore, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner at this stage. All the votes cast by voters included in the final voters list shall be counted for the purpose of

¶43

w.p.(c) No.23310/2012

¶44

¶45

declaration of election result.

¶46

Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the aggrieved persons to challenge the election before appropriate Forum, if so aggrieved. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies-the 2^nd respondent in the writ petition shall hold an enquiry pursuant to Ext.P1 representation and shall pass appropriate directions to the 3rd respondent Society to remove ineligible persons if any, from the membership of the Society after complying with the procedure under the Rules. The Joint Registrar shall consider Ext.P1 representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. There will be a direction to the additional 6^th respondent Returning Officer to secure the voters of persons whose particulars are given as per Ext.P1 in a separate box .

¶47

Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE

¶48

al/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

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

Krishnankutty Vs Govt.of Kerala & Others