IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16228 of 2008(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. C.P.GOMATHY AMMA, KAVUNKAL HOUSE,` NANTHIATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARUR MEMBER NO.803 2. VALSALA ORASANNA KUMAR.M.NO.6287 PANCHAVALLY,N.PARUR 3. SYAMALA.C.V.GOVINDAN M.8050 SREEJI VIHAR, PALLIMPARAMBU, PERUMPADAMAN , NORTH PARUR 4. C.CHANDRAMATHI,M.4598, SALLY HOME, S.NAL UVELLY, N.PARUR 5. P.G.THRESIAMMA, M.5614,MARATHAMTHARA VEE DU, CHATHANADU, SATHIKKARA,N.PARUR 6. P.S.SATHI DEVI, M.16887, SNAH, PERUVARAM, N.PARUR 7. A.K.THANKAMMA BAHULAYAN, SAJU VILLA ANDALATTU, NANDIATTUKUNNAM, N.PARURL BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. PARUR MEHILA CO.OP.SOCIETY LTD.N.1289M N PARUR, REP. BY SECRETARY 2. THE RETURNING OFFICDER/CO.OP.INSPECTOR ALANGADU UNIT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), N.PARUR 3. THE ELECTRICAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO.OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), N.PARUR. W.P.(C) NO.16228/2008 * ADDL. R4- R5 IMPLEADED. 4. RUKHIYA ALI, W/O. ALI, AGED 62, NADUVILE PARAMBIL CANAL ROAD, NORTH PARUR. 5. SHYAMALA VIDHYADHARAN, W/O. VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, PALLANTHURUTHU, NORTH PARUR. *ADDL. R4 AND R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 4.6.08 IN IA. 6778/058 *ADDL. R6 - 10 ARE IMPLEADED 6. BEENA PRAKASH, CHANDRAVILLA, PERUVARAM, N. PARAVUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. KOMALAM T.R., KODUVA PARAMBU, VALIYA PALLAMTHURUTHU, CHENDAMGALAM. 8. A.K.AMBIKA, OTTAKKANDATHIL, PAROOTHARA, MANNAM P.O. PARUR. 9. S.SREEKUMAR RATNAKUMAR, KALABHAVAN (ARUN COLLEGE), KIZHAKKEPURAM, N. PARUR. 10. JOLY JOY, ARAKKAL, EZHIKKARA, CHATHANADU, PARUR. *ADDL. R6- R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 4.6.08 IN IA. 6820/08. ADDL. R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R1 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN ADDL. R6- R10 SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16506 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16228/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DT. 19.5.08. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE NOMINATION PAPER ALONG WITH THE DECLARATION (SPECIMEN). EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY NO.457/08 DT. 29.5.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R6(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FORMS APPROVED BY THE SOCIETY AND FORWARDED TO THE RETURNING OFFICER AND THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.16228 & 16506 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners in both cases are members of the first respondent co-operative society, which is a Vanitha co-operative society. They submitted nominations for the election which has been declared. Those nominations have been rejected. This is under challenge. For the sake of brevity, I would refer to the paper book of W.P(C).16228/08. 2. Exts.P2 and P2(2) were forwarded by the society to the Returning Officer as the form prescribed for the nomination. This is evident from Ext.R6(a)/2, which, among other things, contains signatures attributed to the President and Secretary of the society. The nominations submitted by the petitioners were defective in as much as the declaration in the form of an affidavit, which is Ext.P2(2), was not signed by any of them. WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08 Page numbers 3. There are certain disputes between the parties regarding the veracity of what is projected as the resolution approving the form of the nomination. The petitioners have a version, the contesting private respondents have another version. Learned senior Government Pleader states that the two sheets exhibited as Ext.R6(a) were forwarded with covering letter of the President and Secretary. The President is one of the petitioners in these writ petitions. 4. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that Rule 35 (3) (c) (ii) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 does not prescribe any affidavit in support of the nomination paper and therefore, the rejection of the nominations is invalid. All that is provided in Rule 35 (3) (c) (ii) is that the nomination paper should contain whatever is stated in that provision. It does not mean that the society cannot prescribe any nomination paper which may call for disclosing further materials or adopting any further procedure including filing of affidavit. WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08 Page numbers 5. A reading of Rule 35 (3) (c) (i) will show that the nomination of the candidates for the election shall be made in the form prescribed by the society, which, on application, shall be supplied by the committee to any member, free of cost. Therefore, it is the society which has to prescribe the nomination paper. 6. There is dispute between the parties regarding the veracity of the resolutions attempted to be placed on record. In writ jurisdiction, I shall not, therefore, go into that issue. 7. But what is more important is that one among the petitioners is the President of the immediately outgoing committee and many other petitioners are members. Going by Rule 35 (3) (c) (i), nomination forms have to be obtained from the committee of the society. The petitioners, obviously, obtained the nomination forms from the committee of the society. They have no case that what is exhibited as two sheets (Exts.P2 and P2(2)) were not given to them from the office of the society. At WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08 Page numbers any rate, they did not, then and there, raise any dispute regarding the correctness of the nomination paper issued to them by the committee. So much so, it is impermissible for them to contend that the nomination paper did not contain the affidavit which is Ext.P2(2). 8. Therefore, the rejection of the nomination cannot be interfered with on any jurisdictional issue. Be that as it may, the disputes surrounding the other aspects of the acceptance of nomination may be germane for any election dispute if at all raised. It is clarified that this judgment does not touch on such issues. Subject to the aforesaid, these writ petitions are dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.11/6. WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08 Page numbers THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16228 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 O R D E R Adv.Sri.P.Ramakrishnan appearing for the first respondent states that the documents as directed in the earlier order are made available. He will provide them at the time of consideration of the writ petition. Senior Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 and 3. WPC.16228/08 & 16506/08 Page numbers I.A.Nos.6778/08 & 6820/08 Perused the affidavit. Heard. Allowed. Impleading petitions ordered today brings seven among the candidates whose nominations were accepted. Learned senior Government Pleader submits that altogether 12 nominations were accepted even as per Ext.P3. Learned Government Pleader will make available the files of the Returning Officer, including those in relation to the acceptance and rejection of the nominations. Post on 6.6.2008. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.4/6.