IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22666 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RAMACHANDRAN, NEDIYATHU VEEDU, KUTHIRAPPANTHI P.O., THAZHEVA,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THAZHAVA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.Q.160,S.R.P.MARKET P.O.,THAZHAVA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER/UNIT INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OACHIRA UNIT. 3. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION,TRIVANDRUM,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. M.A.AZAD,ADVOCATE, IQBAL MANZIL,KADATHUR,MANAPPALLY. 6. PRASANNAKUMAR, MELUTTU VEEDU, MANAPPALLY. 7. R.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, PLAVILLAYIL,PAVUMBA,THAZHAVA. 8. DIVAKARAN, UDAYACHAN VILA,PAVUMBA,THAZHAVA. 9. ADVOCATE SUBHASH BABU, KADUVINAL,KUTTIPPURAM,THAZHAVA, SRP MARKET P.O. 10. ADVOCATE G.RAJESH, KALEECKAL,KADATHUR. 11. M.NOORJAHAN, KALATHUTTIL,KADATHUR P.O. 12. N.SASI, KOTTAKKUZHIYIL,MANAPPALLY P.O. MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.22666 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Election to the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent Society, of which the petitioner is a member, is scheduled to be held on 16/08/2009 as per Ext.P1 notification. The petitioner submits that respondents 5 to 12 submitted their nominations, and that the same have been accepted by the Returning Officer. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid persons had availed of loans such as Housing Loan, Business Loan etc., and that they had committed default and therefore should have been held ineligible. Ext.P3 is the list of defaulters, which, according to the petitioner, shows that these persons are defaulters. 2. However, the petitioner submits that fabricating the documents, the nature of the loans were altered, and that the liabilities have been written of, treating the liability as that of agricultural loans. It is also stated that when objections were raised by the petitioner about the eligibility of respondents 5 to 12 to contest in the election being defaulters, that was rejected by the WP(C) No.22666/2009 -2- Returning Officer as per Ext.P5. Although, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6, there is no response. 3. Though the contention raised by the petitioner is that respondents 5 to 12 were defaulters and that therefore they are ineligible to contest in the election, and the respondents have altered the nature of the loans availed of by them and extended the benefit, which is available only to agricultural loans, there is no materials available in support of this plea. 4. It is pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that on the date when respondents 5 to 12 submitted nominations, they were not defaulters. Therefore, going by the contention raised by the petitioner, what is required to be examined is the correctness of the waiver of the loan availed of by them, and if waiver granted is erroneous, naturally it may lead to a situation where respondents 5 to 12 may be defaulters and consequently, they may be ineligible to contest in the election also. But, however, these are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be resolved in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and if at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to seek statutory remedies that are WP(C) No.22666/2009 -3- available. Therefore, leaving open the contentions raised, and without prejudice to the petitioner to move under the Act, this writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg