The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the mandatory duty under Rule 67 of the Co-operative Rules, specifically regarding the requirement of filing relevant records along with the petition. The court clarified that the rule does not mandate the filing of all documents listed in the records and emphasized the distinction between the mandatory requirement of producing a receipted chalan and the interpretation of the rule regarding the production of documents or records along with the petition.

Patnaik, J.

The short question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the expression "the application shall be accompanied by a list of relevant records on which the dispute is based for deciding the dispute", occurring in Rule 67 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short'Co¬operative rules') casts a mandatory duty on the petitioner to file the documents as per the list along with the petition as held in Gopalakrishnan Panickerv. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 495). The learned single judge while interpreting that provision found that a copy of the order declaring the election was not filed along with the election petition. He held that "this declaration forms the basis of the petition, and R.67(i) requires all annexures to be produced along with the petition. When the very basis of the election petition is not produced, along with it as required, despite the mandate contained in sub-rule (i) of R.67, the petition has to fail for non-compliance with this mandatory requirement".

2. The petitioner, a member of the second respondent co-operative Society, filed a petition under R.67 of the co-operative Rules, challenging the validity of the election of respondents 4 to 14 as members of the Board of Directors of the respondent-society. No relevant records were filed though it is submitted that a list of the same was filed along with the petition. Defendants 19,20,22 and 24 in the petition who are now arrayed as respondents 19,20,22 and 23 in the original petition, raised a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the petition. The two preliminary objections that were raised for consideration are-,

(i) The plaint is not accompanied by declaration of results held on 29.6.1995 as required under R.67(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Rules;

(ii) No proper court fees or stamp as per rules are affixed in the election petition.

The arbitrator by Ext. P1 order dated. 28.11.1995 upheld the first objection by relying on the decision in Gopalakrishna Panicker's case (1990 (2) KLT 495) and rejected the petition. He ruled out the second objection.

3. When the matter came up before a learned single judge, he opined that there are conflicted decisions with regard to the question as to whether the above expression lays down any mandatory rule or it is only directory in nature. It was observed by him that in Bhaskara Panicker v. Co-operative Tribunal (1984 KLT 1043), it was held that the said rule is not mandatory as there is no provision either in the Act or the Rules prescribing the consequences of non-production of the list of relevant records along with the application. It was also held that dismissal of the application on that ground cannot be said to be mandatory. In Gopalakrishna Panicker v. State of Kerala (1990 (2) KLT 495), the learned single judge has held that non-compliance of R.67(1) is fatal to the election petition. A Division Bench of this Court in John v. Nalumakkal S. Co. Banl (1991 (1) KLT 527) = (1992 (1) ILR. Ker. 261) held that non-production of the certifies copy of the resolution authorising the Secretary to file an arbitration case is no mandatory and it is only directory. Learned Judge therefore, referred the case for decision by a Division Bench of this Court under S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no mandatory duty is cast o the petitioner to produce the documents or records along with a petition under R.67 £ held by the arbitrator. The expression "list of relevant records" does not mean any c the documents as such listed therein.

5. The word 'list' in common parlance means making mention of a number of item one after the other. The expression "list of relevant records" in the-Rule can therefor mean the mention or enumeration of the items of records or documents on which the petitioner relies to prove the allegations. This expression does not mean the documents as such which are enumerated in the list. It is not incumbent on th