Back
1992 Supreme(Ker) 137
Judges : BALANARAYANA MARAR
Mathew - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 6534 of 1992
Decided On : 06/10/1992
Advocates Appeared :
Antony Dominic; For Petitioner D. Somasundaram; For Respondent
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed election process and clarified the powers of the Returning Officer and the Registrar in considering objections and disputes related to the voters list and election process.
Headnote:
Election - Co-operative Society - S.16, S.17, R.16 of the Act and R.35 of the Rules
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash the notification of election to the managing committee and the order of the Joint Registrar. They objected to the inclusion of ineligible members in the voters list and the names of dead persons. The Returning Officer did not consider their objections, leading to the original petition seeking reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Returning Officer has the power to consider objections to the voters list, including the inclusion of members in violation of R.26. However, members admitted before 60 days prior to the election cannot be removed from the list. The court also emphasized the importance of holding elections in accordance with the prescribed process.
Issues: Validity of electoral roll, authority of the Returning Officer, inclusion of ineligible members in the voters list, and the power of the Registrar to consider disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Returning Officer can consider objections to the voters list, including the inclusion of members in violation of R.26. However, members admitted before 60 days prior to the election cannot be removed from the list. The Registrar has the authority to consider disputes regarding the election.
Final Decision: The original petition seeking to quash the notification of election and the order of the Joint Registrar was dismissed.
1. Petitioners members of a Service Co-operative Bank seek a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P1 notification of election to the managing committee and the order of the Joint Registrar Ext.P7 dated 20-5-1992. A direction to respondents 3 and 4 to considered and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P2 to P6 representations is also sought. The tenure of the present Board of Directors is to expire on 30th June 1992. The committee now in office had prepared a list of members. A Returning Officer was appointed for conducting the election. Ext. P1 is a true copy of the publication by the Returning Officer. First petitioner along with another member of the Society filed objection wherein it was pointed out that persons who reside outside the area of operation had been included in the voters list. It was also pointed out that names of persons who are dead figured in the list The Returning Officer was requested to cure the defect in the voters list. He was also informed of the necessity of issuing identity cards to the voters. Lists containing the names of persons who are dead and persons who reside outside the area of operation were also furnished to the Returning Officer. Instead of considering those objections the final list of voters was published on 15-5-1992. It is averred in the petition that 4th respondent has a duly to consider the objections raised by petitioners and to delete the names of persons who arc ineligible to continue in the rolls of the society. Hence the original petition seeking the reliefs afore mentioned.
2. One Sadasivan Nair filed an application for getting himself impleaded. He claims to be a member of the 5th respondent Society. He is a candidate in the ensuing election which is proposed to be conducted on 13-6-1992. In the affidavit in support of his petition for impleadment it is averred that the Returning Officer is not expected to entertain objections regarding the inclusion of persons in the voters list nor has he the authority to delete those persons from the voters list. Since R.152 of the High Court Rules enables any person who desires to be heard in the matter at the time of hearing of the petition for admission to be heard the petition for impleadment was allowed and the petitioner was impleaded as additional 6th respondent.
3. Heard counsel for petitioners and sixth respondent and Government Pleader.
4. It is urged by learned counsel for petitioners that the challenge is to the validity of the electoral roll and the detect goes to the root of the jurisdiction. The grievance of petitioners is that persons residing outside the area of operation of the Society are included in the voters list and the names of dead persons find a place therein. The contention is that the voters list has been manipulated by the present managing committee so as to obtain a majority for the directors who are now in power. Though representations had been made to the Returning Officer and the lists of the names furnished to him he has not made any enquiries, according to petitioners.
5. Complaint was preferred to the Joint Registrar, Kottayam who by Ext. P7 proceedings dated 20-5-1992 informed petitioners that the request for stay of election cannot be considered since the election process was already underway. Petitioners were further informed that they could invoke the aid of sub-section (3) of S.69 if they had any dispute in the matter. The original petition is filed to quash Ext.P7 proceedings and Ext.P1 notification of election. A writ of mandamus is also sought fora direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider Exts.P2 to P6 representations and pass appropriate orders thereon.
6. The notification for election and the proceedings of the Joint Registrar rejecting the request of petitioners to postpone the election arc sought to be quashed in this original petition. Request is made for a direction to the Returning Officer and the Joint Registrar for consideration of the representations made by petitioners objecting to
