The judgment established the principle that the purity of the election process must be safeguarded, and any violation of statutory requirements or unauthorised stipulations can lead to the invalidation of the election.

Headnote:
Co-operative Societies - Political Power - S.33(1), S.33(2), R.16 - The court declared the election of a Co-operative Society null and void due to illegal enrolment of members by the Administrator, violation of statutory requirements, and unauthorised stipulation in the election notice.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a Co-operative Society in Kerala where political squabbles and malafide functioning by the Administrator were prevalent. The petitioner challenged the election process, alleging illegal enrolment of members, violation of statutory requirements, and unauthorised stipulation in the election notice.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the election was vitiated due to illegal enrolment of members by the Administrator, violation of statutory requirements, and unauthorised stipulation in the election notice. The court exercised its discretion under Art.226 and declared the election null and void.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the Administrator's enrolment of new members, compliance with statutory requirements, and the effect of unauthorised stipulation in the election notice on the election process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the enrolment of new members by the Administrator was unauthorised, illegal, and invalid, which vitiated the election process. The court also found that the unauthorised stipulation in the election notice had the effect of scaring away many voters, leading to the invalidation of the election.
Final Decision: The court declared the election null and void and directed a proper election to be held within a period of four months from the date of the judgment.

Judgment :-

1. Anthony Carter. after an intensive study of an area in India observed: "Co-operative Societies are an important source of political power"

and gave the reasons:

"A large part of the economic activity of the region is channelled through co-operatives and they control patronage in the form of jobs. credit. access to valuable equipment and marketing contracts."

(See 'Elite Politics in Rural India' by Anthony Carter. (1975) page 39).

2. Whether the observation has relevance for the State of Kerala may be a matter for profitable study. if it leads to an effective remedy in the event of there being deleterious effects in the working of the societies due to struggle for power.

3. That political squabbles have been prevalent in the Iriveri Service Co-operative Bank appears to be self-evident in the light of accusations and counter-accusations made by the petitioner and the party-respondents. Thus in ground D of the original petition the petitioner asserted:

"The Administrator with a malafide intention to capture power enrolled members who belong to a particular political group. whereas membership are denied for a section of people." (sic)

The reference to the Administrator is to the one who took over the management of the society on 19-8-1982. superseding an elected committee of which the petitioner was a member. The 4th respondent retorted:

"It may also be pertinent to point out that when the Nayanar Ministry came to power in 1980 the elected Board of the Bank was superseded and the Administrator was imposed at the helm of affairs of the Society"

It may be difficult for either group to claim a 'holier than thou' attitude. The court. however. is not concerned with such issues about the morality. or the lack of it. in the acts and omissions of rival groups. Whatever be the other overtones. legal complaint brought to the notice of the court has to be resolved on the basis of the facts and materials available and on the application of the correct legal principles.

4. The Society appears to have been under the spell of an Administrator's regime. almost throughout the period from 1980 with a brief break in between 1-2-1981 to 19-8-1982 when the previous committee had been elected and was functioning as such. The circumstances leading to the ouster of that committee and the installation of the Administrator in its place had been the subject matter of an earlier writ petition O.P.

No. 6125 of 1982. It is unnecessray to refer to the minute details of the controversies which had raged between the parties during the pendency of that writ petition. Ext. P1 is the judgment in that writ petition. The findings and directions contained in that judgment may briefly be noted so as to furnish the background for the appreciation of the current controversy. This court found that proceedings of the joint Registrar dated 19-8-1982 which purported to disqualify four of the Directors mentioned therein was illegal. it having been issued in violation of an interim order passed by this court on 16-8-1982. The court further held that the proceedings by which a part-time Administrator was appointed for the Society were vitiated by an omission to conform to the first proviso to S.33(1) of the Act. It was found that the assumption about the lack of quorum for the committee was without any justification. When that assumption was baseless. the further action by which the part-time Administrator was appointed for the Society had necessarily to collapse. After consideration of the various facts and materials and the scrutiny of the files made available. it was held:

"It is fairly clear that the report of the Asst. Registrar is an arranged one. to give effect to a pre-planned idea to supersede the Board of the Society."

The various features disclosing unjustified hurry and ugly action on the part of the officials had been elaborately dealt with in the judgment. Ultimately it was held:

"I have no doubt whatever that the orders have not been passed in the normal manner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(Ker) 16

The judgment established the principle that the purity of the election process must be safeguarded, and any violation of statutory requirements or unauthorised stipulations can lead to the invalidation of the election.

Cases Referred (1)