Mr. C. T. Ravikumar, J.

The petitioners are the members of the Changanacherry Co-operative Women’s Welfare Society Ltd. K. No. 1062 (for short ‘the Society’ only). The election to the Board of directors of the Society was scheduled to be held on 12/07/2010 as per Ext. P1 election notification dated 14/06/2010. The nominations were proposed to be submitted on 01/07/2010 before the second respondent between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. The contention of the petitioners is that they have constituted independent panel for the purpose of election and went to the office of the second respondent on 01/07/2010 at 12.45 p.m. and they have submitted their nomination papers. However, the nomination paper submitted by the 9th petitioner alone was accepted citing the reason that by the time the others reached for submission of nomination papers, time fixed for acceptance of nomination was over. Thereupon, they have lodged Ext. P6 complaint against the refusal to accept their nominations before the second respondent. In short, the grievance of the petitioners is against the refusal on the part of the second respondent to accept their nomination papers. As already noticed, their specific contention is that they had actually submitted the nomination papers within the time specified in the election notification. At any rate, according to them, the second respondent, the Returning Officer should have accepted the nomination papers and then proceeded to consider whether it is liable to be accepted or rejected.

2. Admittedly, the maximum number of members of the Board of Directors is 9, the split up being eight from general constituency and one from Scheduled Caste constituency. The second respondent has not accepted the nomination papers of eight candidates and accepted the nomination paper of the 9th petitioner and thereby, virtually reduced the election process to a farce. In short, on account of such action on the part of the second respondent, the democratic process was thwarted and no election was virtually held to the democratic institution the root level, it is contended.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this Writ Petition by the second respondent. Eight other persons whose nomination papers were accepted by the second respondent got themselves impleaded in this Writ Petition as additional respondents 5 to 12. However, they did not file any statement/affidavit apart from the affidavit that accompanied the petition for impleading. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it has been stated that as per Ext. P1 election notification, nominations shall be submitted before the Returning Officer between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 01/07/2010. According to the second respondent, the petitioners herein except the 9th petitioner approached the second respondent for submitting their nomination papers only after 1 p.m. The second respondent has admitted the fact that he had refused to receive the nomination papers from petitioners 1 to 8 on the ground that they came to him to submit the application only after 1 p.m. It is further stated thereunder that the 9th petitioner had submitted nomination at 1 p.m. on 01/07/2010 and therefore, the same was accepted. He had categorically denied allegation of the other petitioners that all of them came together and submitted the nomination papers. It is stated in the counter-affidavit as hereunder:

The 9th petitioner Suseela Panicker submitted a nomination at 1 p.m. on 01/07/2010 and that was acknowledged by the second respondent and therefore allegation of the petitioners that they have submitted 9 nomination papers together is against the facts.

4. In essence, the contention in the counter-affidavit is to the effect that the second respondent had refused to accept the nomination papers as the petitioners turned up in his office for the purpose of submitting nomination papers only after 1 p.m. It is further alleged in the counter-affidavit that the sixth petitioner had taken the valid nomination p