IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18529 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- UMMER.V., S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY V., VAYAMBAN HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAMKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR (VIA), MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 601. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RETURNING OFFICER, ARIYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ARIYUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. ARIYUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ARIYUR, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 & R2 ADV.SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.18529 OF 2008(E) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submitted his nomination for election in terms of Ext.P1 Notification. The date and time fixed for submission of nominations as per that notification was from 11am to 2 pm on 17-6-2008. The nomination was, however, rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by the receipt evidencing payment of Rs.100/- as deposit in terms of Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”. This is under challenge. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and the learned senior Government Pleader. W.P.(C) No.18529/08 - 2 - 3. Ext.P2 shows that the petitioner submitted nomination paper at 1.20 pm on 17-6-2008. Ext.P3 shows that he deposited Rs.100/- as election deposit at 1.27 pm in the office of the bank. Even according to the petitioner, the nomination paper was not accompanied by deposit in the society. According to him, he obtained Ext.P3 and produced it before the Returning Officer. 4. Ext.P1 notification clearly states that the candidate has to deposit an amount of Rs.100/-with the bank along with the submission of the nomination paper. That term in Ext.P1 is in parimateria with the prescription in Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Rules that, along with the nomination paper, the candidate shall deposit Rs.100/- in the society. Admittedly, that was not done. Even going by Exts.P2 and P3, the deposit was made only at 1.27pm after the submission of nomination at 1.20 pm. There is no provision in the Rule 35A or any other provisions in the Rules or the W.P.(C) No.18529/08 - 3 - Act which authorises curing of defects or rectifying the nomination papers. Therefore, when the rule prescribes that the deposit shall be along with the nomination paper, a deposit made after the submission of the nomination paper is not to be construed as substantial compliance of the prescription in the Rule. May be technical, but the law is clear that in matters relating to election, the prescribed procedure is not to be deviated. The only statutory prescription against rejection of a nomination paper is that contained in the proviso to Rule 35A(6)(e)(ii), which provides for a protection that the nomination shall not be rejected, merely on the ground of incorrect description of the name of the candidate or of the name of his proposer or seconder and such other details provided the identity of the candidate, proposer or the seconder is established beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, since the nomination paper was not accompanied by the deposit by showing the deposit as having been made at any point of time, at or before the W.P.(C) No.18529/08 - 4 - filing of nomination, the Returning Officer cannot be found fault with for having rejected the nomination on a ground referable to Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Rules. The impugned order, therefore, stands. This writ petition hence fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/26/06/08