IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31235 of 2008(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- K.P.JANARAJAN, MEMBER NO.2697 KANDALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD. NO.1410,KANDALLOOR SOUTH,KANDALLOOR PO., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SHIJU BHAVAN, KANDALLOOR SOUTH, KANDALLOOR PO, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE CO.OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ELECTORALOFFICER (THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CIRCLE CO.OP.SOCIETIES(AUDIT), KARTHIKAPPALLY).KANDALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO.OP.RANK LTD.NO.1410, KANDALLOOR SOUTH, KANDALLOOR PO., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. KANDALLOOR FARMERS SERVICE CO.OP.BANK LTD. NO.1410, KANDALLOOR SOUTH, KANDALLOOR PO., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 31235/2008-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R1 DATED 06/10/2008 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 08/10/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED SUBMITTED BY THE TEN MEMBERS OF R3 SOCIETY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED SENT BY R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE BYE-LAWS OF THE SOCIETY AND COPY OF BYE LAW AMENDMENT. EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 16/10/2008. EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16/10/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.31235 of 2008-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a member of the third respondent, a farmers' service co-operative bank, to the committee of which an election is notified by the State Co-operative Election Commission as per Ext.P1, scheduling the date of polling to 2-11-2008. The list of members eligible to vote as prepared by the committee of the society was published on 10-10-2008 fixing 14-10-2008 as the date for filing objections and 17-10-2008 for publishing the final voters' list. The petitioner and others made Ext.P2 objections which, according to the Electoral Officer, were put to the committee of the society to which Ext.R2(b) reply was given by the Managing Director of the society, following which the final voters' list was published. This writ petition is filed on WP(C)31235/2008 -: 2 :- 22-10-2008 challenging the final voters' list. 2.At the outset, it is not a matter in dispute that once the electoral process has commenced by the issuance of notification, it is not conducive for the writ court to interfere with the democratic process of electing a committee to a co-operative society, except in exceptionally exceptional circumstances, more so, when Section 69 of the KCS Act provides a complete remedy for resolution of election disputes. 3.Ext.R2(a) bye-laws of the society provide for classification of members into two lists, depending upon the total extent of land that each such member holds. List 1 would take in all members who hold below five acres and list 2 would take in members who hold five acres and above. The objection taken in Ext.P2 is fundamentally, that, in publishing the list of eligible members, the committee did not maintain the classification of members in terms of the aforesaid prescriptions WP(C)31235/2008 -: 3 :- and that it published only one list with all the members, without any classification on the basis of the area of land held by each of them. This is the only objection to the list of members which is projected for consideration in this writ petition. It needs to be immediately noticed that Ext.P2, though it contains a specific accusation that the list of eligible members has been published without two lists as 1 and 2, does not contain any specific reference to any particular member who ought to have been included in a separate list. Be that as it may, when Ext.P2 objections were put by the Electoral Officer to the committee, the Managing Director gave Ext.R2(b) reply taking the stand that there is no member in the society who holds more than five acres and therefore, there is only one list of members to be published. 4.Assimilating the terms of bye-laws, there is really no delimitation of two different constituencies, classifying the vacancies to two groups and forming two electoral colleges by the WP(C)31235/2008 -: 4 :- making of two lists as Lists 1 and 2 as provided in Clause 22 of Ext.R2(a) bye-laws. All that the said provision enjoins is that the list of members will be published classifying the members on the basis of their holdings and list 1 will contain the names of those members who hold less than five acres and list 2 will carry the names of those members who hold five acres and above. The further prescription is that there shall be at least six members from list 1, to the committee the strength of which is 10, as elected members. This does not, ifso facto, mean that there is any compulsion in the bye-laws that there should be any vacancy that has to be necessarily earmarked and filled exclusively from among members in list 2. The classification for the purpose of clause 22 of Ext.R2(a) bye-laws is to ensure that there are at least six members from those who hold lands below the extent of five acres. The thrust is for majority representation for the small scale and marginalized sectors of the farming community. Incidentally, it is also worthwhile to notice WP(C)31235/2008 -: 5 :- that, even going by the petitioner's pleadings, funding organizations go by a classification, while releasing loans and finances to the different sectors within the farming community. For that purpose also, the identity of the individual member, qua the extent of his holdings, may be a relevant consideration. 5.Having thus noticed that the publication of two different lists is not really necessary for the purpose of identifying any constituency or electoral college, but is only to ensure that there are at least six members selected from list 1, the facts of the case in hand disclose that with all members being shown in list 1, there is no reason to assume that there would not be at least six members from that list who would come out successful in the election. The petitioner has named three members in the writ petition as persons who hold five acres or more. Later, along with I.A.13869/2008 he has placed on record the affidavits of Dr.C.Hariprakash and Sri.M.K.Krishna WP(C)31235/2008 -: 6 :- Kumar stating that each of them owns lands in excess of five acres in Kandalloor village and had availed loan from the society and the extent of the loan sanctioned to them is above the bench mark that would be available for a person who has a holding of only less than five acres, going by the schemes of NABARD. Those affidavits do not contain any specific description or actual extent held by them. But in the light of those affidavits, I have perused the loan register maintained by the society which has Hariprakash at page No.210 and M.K.Krishna Kumar at page No.252. Another person Krishnanunni whose name is also mentioned in the writ petition is at page No.70. All of them, going by the loan register, hold lands, only below of five acres each. The loan applications of Krishnanunni and Hariprakash are also made available. They will show that loans were obtained in relation to land which is less than five acres. Any yardstick referable to the amount released as loans is not, by itself, the evidence regarding the extent of land. Therefore, WP(C)31235/2008 -: 7 :- even if any disputed question is to be answered by the writ court on the basis of the documents which are not in dispute, the dice would stand loaded against the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, while I do not find any ground to interfere with or to issue any direction whatsoever at this stage, this writ petition is dismissed preserving the right of the petitioner to challenge the election and the results, if so aggrieved and whatever stated in this judgment will be without prejudice to contentions in any such proceedings. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/011108