SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Ker) 631

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Soman. M. R. , Muthoottu House – Appellant
Versus
Electoral Officer – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Georgekutty Mathew, Advocate. For the Respondents: No Appearance.

Judgment :-

"C.R."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner challenges the rejection of the nomination submitted by him for election to the committee of a co-operative society. Admittedly, he did not make the declaration to be made by the candidate, though he states that he has made a declaration to be made by a candidate who is contesting to the seat reserved for SC/ST. He, therefore, contends that such a declaration would be sufficient and would be one in lieu of the declaration of the candidate as required by Form No.36 issued in terms of Rule 35 A (6) (a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short, the Rules. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that a declaration that the petitioner is qualified to contest for election in the seat reserved for SC/ST candidates in the election proposed to be held on a particular day should necessarily be treated to include his declaration that he has no disqualification under the Act and that he is willing to contest.

3. For one thing, the form of nomination is a statutory form. The requirement to make the nomination in that form is a statutory requirement. The Rules presc


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top