Attestation by an advocate is complete with a signature and does not require a seal.

1. These two related original petitions concern the elections to the managing committee of the 4th respondent Bank, which is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act for short). O.P. No. 6007 of 1988 came up for preliminary hearing yesterday. Since the questions involved were the same as in O.P.No.5694 of 1988, the learned Government Pleader appeared and took notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The Bank itself had not entered appearance, in the other case though notice has been served.

2. This court does not generally entertain challenges at the stage of scrutiny of nominations for election to the committee of a Co-operartive Society, as they are best left to be agitated in an election petition filed under S.69 of the Act. In fact the Supreme Court has in Muthuswamy v. Natarajan, AIR 1988 SC 616 held that there should ordinarily be no interference at the intermediate stage of an election process under Art.226 of the Constitution. But the facts of these cases and the rejection of the nominations are so revolting to common sense and judicial conscience that I feel these are cases where an exception has to be made.

3. The schedule for election to the managing committee of the 4th respondent Bank was published by the third respondent Returning Officer as per the notice Ext.P2 Nominations were to be submitted on 11-7-1988 and the scrutiny was fixed for 12-7-1988.43 nominations including those of the petitioners were submitted on 11-7-1988. The notification Ext.P2 required the nomination to be supported by an affidavit of the candidate testifying that he was not disqualified under R.44. This affidavit had to be attested either by a gazetted officer or by an advocate. The affidavits of the various petitioners in these two original petitions were attested by Sri. C.K. Sreedharan, an advocate of the Hosdurg Bar, all of them on 11-7-1988. They contained his signature as attestor, but did not contain any seal. But all these nominations (except that of the 8th petitioner in O.P.No.6007 of 1988) were rejected by the Returning Officer after scrutiny on 12-7-1988 on the ground that the identity of the attesting authority was not proved beyond doubt, "as there was no rubber seal". Thus the only ground on which the nominations stood rejected was that the attesting advocate C.K. Sreedharan did not affix his seal as pan of the attestation.

4. The petitioners challenge the rejection of the nominations pointing out that affixing the seal as part of the attestation was not required either by the election notification ExtP2 or by R.35 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (Rules for short). R.35(3)(c)(i) and (ii) which prescribes the mode of filing of nominations reads as follows:

"(i) The nomination of the candidates for election shall be made in the form prescribed by the society which on application shall be supplied by the committee to any member, free of cost.

(ii) Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the list of members. One of the members shall sign the Form as proposer and the other as seconder for the nomination. The nomination paper shall also contain a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election."

5. Petitioners challenge the rejection of the nominations as totally malafide, personal, as well as the in the sense that the rejection was for reasons not warranted by law.

6. The counter affidavit filed by the third respondent refutes the allegation of personal malafides. I accept this statement. However, the question still remains whether the third respondent has acted legally in rejecting the nominations for the reason stated, namely absence of seal of the attesting advocate.

7. The election notification only requires attestation. No seal is required to be affixed by an advocate. There is no case for the respondents that the prescribed form of nomination required se