The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person admitted to the membership of the society prior to sixty days of the election and who has paid the entire dues before 30 days of the election is entitled to vote, as per the interpretation of R.26 and R.28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969.

Headnote:
Interpretation - Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules - R.26, R.28 - The court discussed the interpretation of R.26 and R.28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, and their application to the election of the managing committee of a cooperative bank. The court held that a person admitted to the membership of the society prior to sixty days of the election and who has paid the entire dues before 30 days of the election is entitled to vote. The court also addressed the power of the Returning Officer to examine the correctness of admission to the membership and the eligibility to vote. The court concluded that the votes in all ballot boxes had to be counted and the election result declared according to the law laid down.
Fact of the Case:

The cases arose from the decision of the Returning Officer during the election to the managing committee of a cooperative bank, where the eligibility of members admitted within 90 days of the election to vote was in question. The President of the Bank challenged the proceedings of the Returning Officer, and the matter was referred to the Division Bench for reconsideration.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the observations of a previous Division Bench decision were passed without considering the scope of rule 26 as amended. It held that members admitted prior to 60 days of the election are entitled to vote, and the Division Bench decision required reconsideration. The court directed that all votes in the ballot boxes had to be counted and the election result declared according to the law laid down.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of R.26 and R.28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, and their application to the eligibility of members to vote in the election of the managing committee of a cooperative bank. Other issues included the power of the Returning Officer to examine the correctness of admission to the membership and the eligibility to vote.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person admitted to the membership of the society prior to sixty days of the election and who has paid the entire dues before 30 days of the election is entitled to vote. The court also addressed the power of the Returning Officer to examine the correctness of admission to the membership and the eligibility to vote.
Final Decision: The court directed that all votes in the ballot boxes had to be counted and the election result declared according to the law laid down. The court also dismissed the contentions regarding the locus standi of the President of the society to file the original petition and the maintainability of an election petition after the reference was answered.

Judgment :-

J.B. Koshy, J.

Main question to be decided in these cases is regarding the interpretation of R.26 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 thereinafter referred to as 'the rules'). All these cases arise out of the decision of the Returning Officer during the election to the managing committee of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. thereinafter referred to as 'the bank') registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 thereinafter referred to as 'the act) that in view of R.26 and 28 as interpreted by this Court in Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar (1996 (1) KLT 285), members admitted within a period of 90 days of the election cannot participate in the election. The Returning Officer removed names of 1951 members from the voters list without issuing any notice to them by a one line order dated 5.2.1999.

2. President of the Bank challenged the proceedings of the Returning Officer (Ext. P5) by filing O.P. No. 3762/99. The learned Single Judge who admitted the above O.P. was of the opinion that the question raised regarding the eligibility to vote by members who were admitted within 90 days of the election has to be considered in detail. But, to safeguard the interests of both sides, an interim direction was made on 23.2.1999 as follows:

"In order to safeguard the interests of both the parties I am inclined to give a

direction to keep three ballot boxes in the election to be held on 27.2.1999. The Returning Officer will keep a separate ballot box for casting votes of members shown in Ext. P5 excluding members 50881 to 51207. For members 50881 to 51207 another box will be kept. Regarding the other undisputed votes, the Returning Officer will maintain another ballot box. The votes kept in the boxes could be separately counted. The Returning Officer would declare the result after filing a statement before this Court. It is made clear that no administrator be appointed till the matter is finally decided by tin's Court".

Thereafter, after the election was over, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned judge found that observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Vijayakumar's case (supra) were passed without considering the scope of rule 26 as amended. It was further held that there is no dispute that the members were admitted prior to 60 days of election and as decided by another single judge of this Court in M.S. Paul & Ann v. Alakode Service Co-op. Bank & Ors. (1992 (2) KLJ 541) members admitted prior to 60 days of election are entitled to vote and, therefore, the Division Bench decision requires reconsideration and the matter was referred to the Division Bench by reference order dated 11.3.1999. In the O.P., originally, only Returning Officer was made as respondent as it challenged only the decision of the Returning Officer. Thereafter, whoever sought impleadment were allowed to be impleaded. Fourth additional respondent filed an appeal against the interim order dated 23.2.1999. By order dated 30.3.1999 in CMP No. 1945/99 in W.A. No. 786/99,it was held that after the term of the erstwhile managing committee is over, they cannot continue in office and administrator has to be appointed and, therefore, part of the direction in the interim order dated 23.2.1999 that till a final decision is taken, administrator should not be appointed was vacated.

3. As directed in the order dated 23.2.1999 election was conducted and polling was done in three separate ballot boxes - one for the undisputed voters, second for casting votes of members shown in Ext. P5 excluding members 50881 to 51207 and third one for members 50881 to 51207 who are admitted as members as per the resolution dated 28.12.1998. Election notification was dated 29.1.1999 and date of election was 27.2.1999. After counting of the votes a report was filed before this Court by the Returning Officer showing the votes polled by each candidate with a statement. Thereafter, the matter came up during vacation, for declaration of result and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document