IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2095 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. VANDANNOOR SADASIVAN, DELEGATE OF PUNNAVOOR HANDLOOM WEAVERS (PRODUCTION-CUM-SALE) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H.9, KOOVALASSERI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PERINGAMALA VIJAYAN, DELEGATE OF VINOBA SMARAKA HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY H IND (T)NO.520, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. D.SUDHAKARAN, DELEGATE OF KALLUNAD HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H.146, THANNIMOOD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. G.R.ANIL, DELEGATE OF MUKKOM PALAMOOD HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.H.IND(T)329, VEDIVACHAN COIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RETURNING OFFICER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.232, (HANTEX) DEPUTY REGISTRAR DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H.232, (HANTEX), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR. M.SASINDRAN R3 BY SR.GOVERMENT PLEADER MR.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR R4 BY ADV. MR.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.2098 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) Nos.2095, 2098, 2099 and 2100 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd January, 2010 Judgment The petitioners in these writ petitions are candidates who have submitted valid nominations for election to the managing committee of the Kerala State Handloom Weavers' Co- operative Society Limited, hereinafter referred to as 'the Hantex' for short. In these writ petitions, the petitioners challenge the acceptance of the nominations submitted by the party respondents overruling their objection that the societies of which they are delegates are in default to the Hantex and therefore they are disqualified to contest in the election under rule 46 (e) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. Relying on the information furnished by the Managing Director of Hantex as well as the statement in the orders passed by the Returning Officer overruling their objections, the petitioners state that the societies of which the party respondents in these writ petitions are delegates, owe various sums of money to the W.P.(C) Nos. 2095/2010 & connection 2 Hantex and therefore as the societies are admittedly in default, their delegates cannot contest the elections. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Purushothaman Nair v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 879) in support of the said contention. 2. Sri.P.K.Vijaya Mohanan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and Sri.K.C.Santhosh Kumar and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the Returning Officer submit relying on the definition of the term 'default' occurring in rule 44 (1) (c) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules that unless it is shown that as on the date of submission of the nominations the societies represented by the party respondents in these writ petitions were in default, the petitioners cannot heard to contend that the acceptance of the nominations submitted by the party respondents is illegal. The learned counsel also relied on the definition of the term 'default' occurring in sub-rule 2 (d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. W.P.(C) Nos. 2095/2010 & connection 3 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Rule 44 (1) © (i) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules reads as follows: “44. Disqualification of membership of committee:- (1) No member of the society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of the committee of the soceity under S.28, if he: xx xx xx xx (c) (i) is in default to the society or to any other society in respect of any loan or loans taken by him or loan in which he had stood surety, for such period, as is prescribed in the bye-laws of the society concerned or in any case for a period exceeding three months or is a defaulter to the society or to any other society; or As per the said rule, no member of a society shall be eligible for being elected as a member of the managing committee of the society under section 28 if he is in default to the society or to any other society in respect of any loan or loans taken by him or a loan in which he had stood surety for such period as is prescribed in the bye-laws of the society or for a period exceeding three months, or is a defaulter to the society or to any other society. This disqualification is also applicable to delegates of societies which are members of apex societies. W.P.(C) Nos. 2095/2010 & connection 4 The term 'default' is defined in rule 2 (d) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules as follows: “ 'Default' means failure on the part of any person, to repay to the financing bank or to any other society a loan or any other amount due to it within the time fixed for repayment or to return to the society within the time fixed the finished goods in respect of raw materials advanced or to keep any other obligation for the fulfillment of which a time limit has been specified in the bye-laws.” As per the said definition, 'default' is failure on the part of any person (i) to repay the financing bank or to any other society a loan or any other amount due to it within the time fixed for repayment or (ii) to return to the society within the time fixed the finished goods in respect of raw materials advanced or (iii) to keep any other obligation for the fulfillment of which a time limit has been stipulated in the bye-laws. In the instant case, the petitioners have no case that the first two limbs of the above definition of the term 'default' are attracted. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies on the third limb of the definition of the term 'default' to support his contention that the societies represented by the party W.P.(C) Nos. 2095/2010 & connection 5 respondents are in default. As per the third limb of the definition of the term 'default', the societies of which the party respondents are delegates can be said to be in default only if they have failed to keep any obligation for the fulfillment of which a time limit has been specified in the bye-laws. No material has been produced before this Court to show that the bye-laws of the Hantex prescribe a time limit within which the amounts outstanding with the societies have to be cleared or within which the raw materials and the furnished goods have to be returned. As a matter of fact, the petitioners have not pleaded in the writ petition that any such time limit has been stipulated in the bye-laws. Further, at the time of scrutiny of the nominations, the Returning Officer is not bound to conduct a rowing enquiry to ascertain whether a delegate or a member of the society is in default. In such circumstances, I am constrained to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that if at all the petitioners are aggrieved their remedy lies in challenging the election in other appropriate proceedings. W.P.(C) Nos. 2095/2010 & connection 6 I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out warranting interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to challenge the election if they are aggrieved by the result of the election in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa