IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10712 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SWAPNA SUNIL, W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, RESIDING AT KARIKKATHIL VEEDU, ATTINEKIZHAKKEKARA, VILLUMALA P.O., KULATHUPUZHA, KOLLAM 691 310. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNALUR, KOLLAM. 3. KULATHUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO. 1867, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. THE PRESIDENT, KULATHUPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, NO.1867, KULATHUPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R3 & R4 SRI. K.SIJU FOR R3 & 4 SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR FOR R3 & 4 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 10712/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC NO. 60/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE R1 ARBITRATION COURT DT. 18/5/2007. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN ARC NO. 70/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE R1 ARBITRATION COURT DT. 11/6/07. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD ISSUED BY THE R1 CO-OP BANK TO ONE OF THE APPLIANTS DT. 20/3/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. True copy Tga Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.10712 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner lost in the election conducted to the committee of the third respondent co-operative bank. She filed arbitration case challenging that election. On allegations that certain backdoor appointments are going to be made by the committee in office, this writ petition is filed alleging that such proceedings may not be permitted. Accordingly, an interim order was issued directing that the selection procedure may continue, however that, there shall no interview or approval of appointment. As of now, the Secretary of the third respondent has filed a counter affidavit also on behalf of the fourth respondent President, stating among other things in paragraphs 7 to 11, that the third respondent is a Class-II bank with two branches and it has a sanctioned strength in which WPC10712/2008 -:2:- there is a dearth of staff which calls for immediate recruitment and accordingly the Board resolved on 6-11-2007 to fill up certain vacancies and an outside agency was to conduct the selection in accordance with law. It is also pleaded that applications were invited by issuing advertisements in two vernacular dailies and there were 57 applications and written test was scheduled to be conducted on 29-3-2008 and the writ petition was filed on that juncture. 2. As of now, the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner is that, going by what is transpiring in the arbitration proceedings in relation to the election dispute, there is all probability of the election being set aside and hence, in all probability, the committee in office will be ousted and it is appropriate that the interview and conclusion of selection is pushed off till the arbitration court delivers the verdict WPC10712/2008 -:3:- which is expected to be by the 16th of next month. 3. I am not impressed. A duly elected committee is entitled to be in office and the continuance in office cannot be interdicted by any interim order merely because of the pendency of an election dispute. The exercise of discharge of powers and functions referable to the office cannot also be interdicted merely because of the existence of an election dispute. In the realm of election law, it is not contemplated that the elected member could be kept away from discharging his duties and responsibilities attached to the electoral office. The question of issuing interim orders would arise only in cases where the election is set aside and appointments are being considered. Thus, the normal practice and procedure is followed right from the Apex Court down to the subordinate courts which deal with election matters under any law as are now exists. There is also no provision in the WPC10712/2008 -:4:- Act or Rules on any elected member to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached to the office merely on the ground of pendency of an election case. 4. An interim order issued on 28-3-2008 was essentially because of the plea that backdoor recruitments were being made. But, as already noticed, it is the specific case of the society in paragraphs 7 to 11 of its counter affidavit sworn by its secretary that, the selection procedure is being done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules. Having regard to what is aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed, however without prejudice to the right, if any of the petitioner, to chalenge any selection and appointment in accordance with law if such selection is ultimately shown to be against the provisions of the Act and Rules in so WPC10712/2008 -:5:- far as they govern selection and appointment to co- operative societies. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl/2/6/08