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. 18357 of 2008(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------------- 1. A.K.KUTTAN, ARAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.PERINJANAM WEST, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. K.A.BHASKARAN, KOCHIKKATHU HOUSE, DO. DO. 3. K.K.KRISHNAN, KANAKKATHISSERY HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM BEACH, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 4. RAJAN @ RAJAPPAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, DO. DO. 5. K.K.SUBRAMANYAN, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KOOLIMUTTAM, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE KALPAMANGALAM FISHERMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2941, KALPAMANGALAM BEACH, TRICHUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER/FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHAVAKKAD, THE KAIPAMANGALAM FISHERMEN'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2941, KAIPAMANGALAM BEACH, TRICHUR DISTRICT. Kss ..2/- ..2.... WPC.NO.18357/2008 I 3. WATSON, SON OF ALAPPUZHA VELAYUDHAN, P.O.CHAMAKKALA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 4. INDRAN, SON OF MANAPPAT ADIMA, P.O.KOOLIMUTTAOM, DO. 5. K.T.CHANDRAN, KANNANVEETHIL THEYYAN, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM BEACH, DO. 6. PRASANNA, WIFE OF MADANAN, KOZHIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KAIPAMANGALAM BEACH, DO. 7. REMA SUGUNAN, KOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, DO. DO. 8. BIJU, SON OF ERAMPURACKAL KUTTAN, P.O.KOOLIMUTTAM, DO. 9. USHA, WIFE OF THALASSERI BALAN, P.O.KOORIKKUZHY, DO. 10. RATNAKARAN, S/O.KURUPPATH PEETHAMBARAN, DO. DO. 11. BABURAJAN, SON OF KOZHIPPARAMBIL KRISHNAN, KAIPAMANGALAM BEACH P.O., DO. 12. VELAYUDHAN, SON OF AYYAPPAN KUNJU, PALLATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM WEST P.O., DO. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN- R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN - R1 SRI.RAJIT - R8 SRI.RANJIT BABU - R8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.18357/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BANK DTD. 17/05/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAAGE OF THE BYE-LAWS. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOMINATION PAPER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHOSE NOMINATION HAS BEEN REJECTED DTD. 17.06/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES WHOSE NOMINATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED DTD. 17/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY USHA BALAN. EXT.R2(B): NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY M.K.INDRAN. EXT.R2(C): NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY K.V.RAJAN (RAJAPPAN). EXT.R2(D): NOMINATION SUBMITTED BY K.S.KRISHNAN. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.18357 of 2008-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The area of operation of the first respondent, a co-operative bank is spread over four villages, Koolimuttam, Perinjanam, Kaipamangalam and Chenthrappinni. Clause 7(1) of its bye-laws provides that the committee of the society shall consist of nine members, to be elected in terms thereof. Two members are to be elected from Koolimuttam village, two from Perinjanam village, four from Kaipamangalam village, of whom one has to be a woman and one from Chenthrappinni village. The electoral college is the entire members who are eligible to vote, without any restriction on the basis of the villages. 2.Ext.P1 notification was issued for election. Petitioners filed nominations. The nomination WP(C)18357/2008 -: 2 :- papers were issued to them by the society. Nomination papers were not issued by the society identifying any particular constituency identifiable by the names of the villages, though every nomination paper contained a column where the name of the village has to be entered. Therefore, going by the form of the nomination paper prescribed and issued by the society, it is sufficient that the candidate discloses the village as a constituency to which his candidature is proposed. 3.Though Ext.P2 bye-laws do not make any classification on the basis of wards, a column is provided in Ext.P3 nomination paper to state the ward. Ext.P1 notification also does not use the word "ward". 4.The nomination papers of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that the identity of the ward was not mentioned. WP(C)18357/2008 -: 3 :- 5.Along with the affidavit of the second respondent Returning Officer, Ext.R2(c) and Ext.R2(d) are produced to show the ground of rejection of the nominations. Ext.P4 is issued by the Returning Officer. That shows that the only ground of rejection of the nominations of the petitioners is that the identity of the ward has not been disclosed in the nomination papers. Ext.R2(c) shows the rejection of the nomination of one of the candidates stating that ward has not been stated. Ext.R2(d) shows the rejection of yet another nomination on the ground that ward is not shown; as to whether it is "SC”/"Vanitha"/"General". 6.Ext.R2(d) apparently shows that the Returning Officer proceeded on the basis that the nomination papers should contain appropriate entry to identify the candidate as being nominated for contest in the Scheduled Caste or Woman or General category. No such classification or categorization is prescribed in the nomination WP(C)18357/2008 -: 4 :- form. Similarly, the notification also does not require that. I may at once state that going by the scheme of the rules, a person aspiring to contest in a constituency reserved for Scheduled Caste has to provide along with the nomination the due certification of that person belonging to that community. The Returning Officer in his affidavit states that Koolimuttam, Perinjanam, Kaipamangalam and Chenthrappinni villages were identified as Wards A, B, C and D in Ext.P1 and therefore, what is meant by a ward is what has been indicated in Ext.P1 as A, B, C and D and without such entry having been made in the nomination papers, the nominations are liable to be rejected. It needs to be noticed that from Koolimuttam village one candidate has to be from the Scheduled Caste category. If that is a reserved constituency, obviously, there has to be a bifurcation of the categories of seats in a constituency which the Returning Officer has identified as Ward A in Ext.P1. Similarly, one among the four seats in Kaipamangalam village is WP(C)18357/2008 -: 5 :- reserved for women. Therefore, there should be two categories of nominations for the said two constituencies within that village of Kaipamangalam which is identified as Ward C in Ext.P1. I say this only to demonstrate that even if the English Alphabets A, B, C and D in Ext.P1 are taken for the purpose of identifying the different wards as stated by the Returning Officer, that will only lead to further confusions in this election which has really reached a point where the democratic process is getting stultified. 7.Since the bye-laws have not classified the area of operation into wards but only into villages, the Returning Officer had no authority to state or classify the area of operation into wards even in Ext.P1. Though the mere mentioning of the English Alphabets A, B, C and D does not even indicate in Ext.P1 that that is a classification in the form of wards, it needs to be noticed that that was no ground for rejection of the WP(C)18357/2008 -: 6 :- nominations of the petitioners because, the classification of the area of operations into A, B, C and D has been made only with reference to the four villages which are dealt with in Clause 7(1) of the bye-laws. 8.For the aforesaid reasons, the rejection of the nominations of the petitioners is unsustainable, being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the prescribed rules. Having held so, it has also to be ensured that the process of election has to be appropriately held by commencing the proceedings de novo from the stage at Sl.No.8 in Ext.P1, namely, the scrutiny of the nomination papers. To aid such process and to provide fair play in the democratic process, the rejection of nominations of those in Ext.P4 whose nominations were rejected solely on the ground of non-mentioning of the ward, is set aside. This means that the rejection of nomination of persons at Sl.Nos.2, WP(C)18357/2008 -: 7 :- 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 is set aside directing that the scrutiny of those nomination papers shall be done afresh by fixing an appropriate day and notifying the same. The date of election, having regard to the interest of the society, shall stand re-fixed as 11th July, 2008, by the force of this judgment. This fact shall also be notified by the Returning Officer in the notice board of the society. The term of the committee presently in office is due to end by the 30th of this month. The present committee will continue to hold office till election as directed above is conducted and results declared. It is also clarified that any other objections to the nomination papers which are directed to be listed, if raised, shall, appropriately, be considered. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/250608