Facts in Brief: Two petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38705/2015 are the members of the fourth respondent Bank. Four of the six petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38391/2015 were the members of the erstwhile managing committee of the Bank. Initially on 31.10.2015, the managing committee resolved to request the Election Commission to conduct the election. Later, on 21.11.2015 petitioners 1 to 4 resigned from the managing committee.

2. Since all the petitioners in both the writ petitions, being the members of the fourth respondent Bank, have assailed Exhibit P2 election notification on almost identical grounds, this Court has decided to dispose of the writ petitions through a common judgment. For the sake of convenience, I refer to the facts pleaded and the documents placed in W.P.(C) No.38705/2015.

3. In the wake of Exhibit P2 election notification issued on 20.11.2015 by the Election Commission deciding to hold elections on 03.01.2016, the petitioners have assailed the legality of the process adopted by the respondent Bank for conducting the election. Since the factual matrix is not elaborate, it can be unfolded through the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on either side.

Submissions:

Petitioners' in W.P. (C) No.38705/2015:

4. Sri. George Poonthottam, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38705/2015, has submitted that just days prior to the Bank resolving to conduct election and also on the very day when it resolved to conduct election, i.e., on 03.10.2015 and 31.10.2015, it admitted more than four thousand members without any manner or method. According to him, the managing committee at the helm of the affairs took recourse to abuse of process in having en mass admissions of new members. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel that, in the process of inducting new members, the managing committee of the respondent Bank has grossly violated Section 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act' for brevity) and Rule 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules ('the Rules' for brevity), as well as Rule 35A(iv) of the very same Rules.

5. On the issue of elections on ward-basis, the learned counsel has contended that though the statute mandates that the list of new members should be approved, the said approval never took place. According to the learned counsel, the bye-laws and the statute mandate that the elections are to be held on ward-basis. And ipso facto the voters' list should be prepared on ward basis. Nevertheless, the respondent Bank has decided to go ahead with elections without preparing the voters' list on ward basis.

6. Drawing my attention to Exhibit P9 objections, the learned counsel would further contend that though the petitioners submitted the said objections on 18.12.2015, the Returning Officer duly acknowledged its receipt, he did not, however, choose to pass any orders. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that all the seven candidates who have submitted their nominations do not belong to the wards they have decided to contest from.

7. On the issue of membership, the learned counsel has submitted that the Rules have specifically mandated that each candidate desiring to be a member of a Society/ Bank should individually submit an application along with the requisite fee. The Society/Bank, in turn, is required to examine each application and consider whether that particular candidate meets all the eligibility criteria so that he could be made a member of the society.

8. Nevertheless, in the present instance, the managing committee, according to the learned counsel, had been in a hurry to see that a large number of members were admitted at the last moment so as to tilt the electoral balances. It has, accordingly, given a go-by to any violation of the statutory mandate. The learned counsel has further contended that if the procedure prescribed under Section 16 of the Act and Rule 16 of the Rules were to be followed scrupulously, it would be