IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19770 of 2010(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- AKBAR.M.K., S/O.P.CHERIYAKOYA, MALMIKAKKADA HOUSE, KALPENI ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI, KAVARATHI ISLANDS. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALPENI ISLANDS (THE RETURNING OFFICER, KALPENI ISLAND CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING SOCIETY), LTD.NO.LMA 2, KALPENI ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP. 3. THE KALPENI ISLAND CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING SOCIETY, LTD.NO.LMA 2, KALPENI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.19770 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent Returning Officer in rejecting all the nomination papers submitted by the prospective candidates for the election to the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent. The Returning Officer has rejected all the nominations for the reason that an objection was raised against accepting the nominations by one of the voters pointing out that the prospective candidates had not produced any evidence to show that they had supplied the requisite quantity of copra to the 3rd respondent Society during the previous year, as stipulated by the by-laws. When an objection was raised against the first nomination the Returning Officer found that the same was not supported by any document evidencing supply of copra to the Society, and therefore, he rejected the same. On the W.P.(C).No.19770 of 2010 2 very same basis all the other nominations were rejected finding that they were not accompanied by any supporting documents. 2. In view of the above situation, complaints were sent to the 1st respondent against the action of the Returning Officer. On the basis of the said complaints, it is alleged that the 1st respondent has issued orders directing all the nominations to be accepted. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.8531/2010 producing Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent. As per Ext.P7, the first respondent has directed the Returning Officer to re-fix the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers to a suitable date so as to complete the election process by 30.6.2010 as per the schedule already notified. 3. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that when all the nomination papers submitted were rejected by the Returning Officer on 18.6.2010, the date notified for scrutiny of the nomination papers, a situation was created whereby it became impossible for the election W.P.(C).No.19770 of 2010 3 to be conducted as per the schedule already notified. The above situation can be rectified only by issuing a fresh election notification and publishing a fresh schedule of elections. Otherwise, it is submitted that the rights of an indeterminate number of people would be effected. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions to remedy the above situation. 4. Advocate Shri. S.Radhakrishnan who appears for respondents 1 and 2 submits on instructions that the nomination papers were rejected on the basis of a misconception that the by-laws contained a stipulation mandating every person who wanted to contest the election to have supplied a specified quantity of copra to the Society during the previous year. However, it is submitted that on verification it was found that the condition was not there for the reason that the provision had been deleted by amendment. In view of the fact that the nominations did not suffer from any infirmity as found by the Returning Officer, as per Ext.P7 proceedings, a direction W.P.(C).No.19770 of 2010 4 was issued to conduct the scrutiny afresh. The Returning Officer was to proceed with the rest of the procedures as notified, with the object of completing all the formalities of the election before 30.6.2010. 5. It is not in dispute that the scrutiny of nomination papers was conducted on 18.6.2010 as per the schedule already notified. It is also not in dispute that the Returning Officer had after scrutiny, rejected all the nomination papers on the said date. Therefore, the schedule for the conduct of election as notified was already upset by the above proceedings. The said situation is not capable of being remedied by the issue of Ext.P7 and by the direction to conduct the rest of the procedures from the point at which the schedule was disrupted. The entire procedure for the conduct of election would have to be started afresh by the issue of another notification. Therefore, the proceedings Ext.P7 now issued by the 1st respondent is unsustainable. In view of the above this writ petition is allowed. The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed not to proceed with W.P.(C).No.19770 of 2010 5 the election pursuant to Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall issue a fresh election notification and a fresh schedule for the conduct of the election in accordance with law. The election to the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent Society shall be conducted only in accordance with the said schedule. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mns