The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, S.28(2)(b) of the Co-operative Societies Act, and R.35(3)(d)(iii) of the Rules to determine the eligibility of a candidate and the validity of a nomination paper.

The Original Petition is to declare that the 3rd respondent is not eligible for being elected or appointed as a member of the Kannambra Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. No. F. 1221 and that the nomination paper submitted by him pursuant to Ext.P1 election notification was liable to be rejected by the first respondent and also for a further declaration that the 2nd petitioner is entitled to be elected unopposed as member of the Board of Directors of Kannambra Co-operative Service Bank Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as 'the bank') from Kannambra ward. There are also prayers for other reliefs, which are of incidental nature.

2. Petitioners are members of the 2nd respondent Bank. The term of the Board of Directors of the Bank was to expire on 30-6-1990. Therefore, a resolution was passed to conduct the election to constitute a new Board of Directors. Ext.P1 election notification dated 17-5-1990 was issued fixing 17-6-1990 as the date of election to the new Board of Directors. Altogether nine Directors are to be elected out of which one seat is reserved for woman candidates and one reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. Two seats were reserved for members who have deposited with the bank not less than Rs.2, 000/- without any liability. The remaining five Directors are to be elected from five wards. Kannambra is one of the five wards. In this case I am concerned only with the nomination and election of the Director from Kannambra ward.

3. The election notification fixed 6-6-1990 as the date for filing the nominations at the Bank Head Office between 1 P.M. and 3 P.M. The first petitioner filed nomination as a candidate from Ayakkad Ward. The 2nd petitioner and the 3rd respondent submitted nominations as candidates from Kannambra ward. The nominations were to be scrutinised on 7-6-1990 from 11 AM. On wards at the Bank Head Office and the final list of candidates was to be published on the same day at 3 P.M. in the notice board of the Bank. On scrutiny of the nomination papers the petitioner's nomination was found to be in order and was accepted. The 3rd respondent who was also a candidate to be elected from Kannambra ward had filed his nomination showing that he was already a member of the Board of Directors of two other co-operative Societies, viz. the Land Development Bank, Alathur and the Manjappara-Kannambra Co-operative Milk Society. The 1st petitioner, therefore, submitted written objection to the 1st respondent Returning Officer requesting him to reject the nomination paper of the 3rd respondent. Ext.P2 is the written objection filed before the Returning Officer by the 1st petitioner. Another member, viz. one Sri.K.S. Radhakrishnan also filed objection, Ext.P3, against the nomination of the 3rd respondent raising the same grounds. The objection raised by the 1st petitioner as well as Sri.K.S. Radhakrishnan was that the 3rd respondent being a member of the Board of Directors of two other Cooperative Societies, is ineligible to compete in the election to the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent Bank under R.44(1)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the rules' ) read with S.28(2) (b) of the Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and R.35(3)(d)(iii) of the Rules. The cumulative effect of the said provisions is that if a person is the member of the Board of Directors of two Co-operative Societies, he should be treated as unqualified for being elected or appointed as a member of the Board of Directors of another Co-operative Society. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when the defect in the nomination paper of the 3rd respondent was pointed out, the 1st respondent Returning Officer observed that he was rejecting the nomination of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, as far as Kannambra ward is concerned, only the 2nd petitioner remained in the contest and he ought to have been declared elected being t