The rejection of nomination papers must be based on valid grounds, and the court has the authority to order further steps for a final election based on accepted nominations.

Headnote:
These writ petitions concern the acceptance of a nomination paper presented by a candidate at an election to the Committee of a Co-operative Society. The court considered S.20 of the Co-operative Societies Act and R.35 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, which govern the election procedure. The court held that the rejection of the nomination papers by the Returning Officer was unjustifiable and without jurisdiction, and ordered the further steps for a final election to be taken based on the accepted nominations.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed their nominations for the election to the Committee of a Co-operative Society, but their nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that the proposer and the seconder had proposed and seconded other candidates too.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the nomination papers was unjustifiable and without jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the rejection of the nomination papers by the Returning Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of the nomination papers was unjustifiable and without jurisdiction, and ordered the further steps for a final election to be taken based on the accepted nominations.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the court ordered the further steps for a final election to be taken based on the accepted nominations.

Judgment :-

1. These three writ petitions raise the same point. The question involved relates to the acceptance of a nomination paper presented by a candidate at an election to the Committee of a Co-operative Society.

2. The election to the Committee of the Pattom Colony Service Cooperative Society was scheduled to be held on 3-8-1986. The petitioners in all the three writ petitions bad filed their nominations within the prescribed time. They were scrutinised by the Returning Officer. Sixteen out of the nomination papers were rejected for various defects. The nomination of the three petitioners was rejected on the ground that the proposer and the seconder of the nomination had proposed and seconded the other candidates too. The view taken by the Returning Officer is challenged in these writ petitions.

3. O. P. Nos. 5520/86 and 5525/86 were filed on 29-7-1986. By order dated 30-7-1986, this Court directed notice to be served by special messenger and posted the hearing of the cases on 1-8-1986. After hearing counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader, this Court passed an interim order of stay on 1-8-1986, as a prima facie case about the basic illegality in the election procedure was made out. It was felt having regard to the circumstances, that the election if allowed to be proceeded with, would entail wasteful expenditure of time and energy.

4. O. P. No. 6157/1986 was filed on 22-8-1986 raising the identical challenge.

5. S.20 of the Co-operative Societies Act and R.35 of the Co-operative Societies Rules are the relevant statutory provisions to be considered in answering the question raised in the Original Petition. S.20 of the Act provides that every member of the Society shall have one vote in the affairs of the Society. The exercise of the vote is to be made in person, under S.21. S.109 confers on the Government the power to

make rules. Clause (xi) of sub-s. 2 of that section refers to the election of members of the committee by the general body of a society. R.35 referred to me is one among the relevant rules made in exercise of the above statutory power. The Returning Officer has to intimate the members about the details of the election to the committee. The number of vacancies to be filled up and other details have to be included in the intimation so sent. The voters' list has to be prepared and finalised in the manner provided under R.35(b). Clauses (c) to (h) cover various aspects connected with the Domination of candidates and arrangements for election when the number of candidates whose nomination papers are declared valid exceed the number to be elected for any area or constituency. R.35 (c) is particularly relevant in this context, and it reads:

"(c)(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.

(iii) Every nomination paper snail be presented in person or sent by registered post acknowledgment due, by the candidate himself or by his proposer or seconder to the Returning Officer, so as to reach him before the date and hour specified in item (iv) of the notice referred to in clause (a) The Returning Officer shall enter on the nomination paper its ferial number and certify the date and hour at which the nomination paper is received by him and shall immediately give a written acknowledgement for the receipt of the nomination paper Any nomination paper which is not delivered or received on or before the date and time fixed for its receipt shall be rejected."

6. There is no case that the petitioners are ineligible to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document