The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of voting rights based on discrepancies in the Form 6B register was illegal and not permitted by the KCS Act and Rules. The court emphasized the importance of conducting elections in strict accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 35A(6)(n)(ix) of the KCS Rules.

JUDGMENT :

The prayer in the writ petition is to declare that the elections held on 09.07.2022 to the 6th respondent Society and Ext.P10 as void and that it is not an election in the eye of law. There is also a prayer for a direction to the 2nd respondent to appoint an Administrative Committee from among the members of the last Managing Committee till fresh polling is conducted and results are declared. There are consequential prayers made to the effect that there should be a direction to the 4th respondent Returning Officer to permit all the members in the final voters' list published on 15.12.2020 with Form 6A identification cards and any other document mentioned in Rule 35n(ix) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the KCS Rules' for short) to vote in the polling next scheduled.

2. The 6th respondent is a Primary Agricultural Credit Cooperative Society. The petitioner states that there are 14654 members. It is stated that elections were notified to be held on 9.7.2022 after a long-drawn-out legal battle at the instance of the petitioners. It is stated that to defeat the cause, the respondents permitted only 830 out of 14654 members to vote. On the basis of the said voting, the 4th respondent Returning Officer declared respondents 7 to 17 as elected. It is in the above circumstances that the writ petition has been filed.

3. The term of the earlier Managing Committee was due to expire on 16.1.2021. The earlier Managing Committee, in which petitioners 1, 3, and 4 were also members, resolved to hold elections on 10.1.2021. The 3rd respondent notified elections as per Ext.P1 notification dated 27.11.2020. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the Bank issued a preliminary voters list, which had 14654 members, including the petitioners. No complaints were received against the preliminary voters list. On 15.12.2020, the final voters list was issued, which also contained the names of the petitioners as members. Ext.P1(a) produced, is the relevant pages of the final voters’ list, which had 14654 members.

4. On 08.01.2021, the 3rd respondent postponed the elections based on a complaint that persons who were not entitled to membership had been enrolled as members of the bank. Consequently, the Managing Committee of the Bank was replaced by an Administrator and later by an Administrative Committee. Challenging the postponement of the election on 08.01.2021, complaining that the Administrative Committee was not taking any steps for holding the election, and challenging the direction of the Administrator to the Bank to make available Rs1,92,525/-for sending notices to persons who were allegedly enrolled illegally, writ petitions were filed before this Court. The writ petitions were heard together, and this Court, by judgment dated 9.4.2021, directed the election to be conducted de novo after rejecting the contention of the petitioners that the election process shall be resumed from the stage at which it was stopped. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A.No.1314 of 2021. Meanwhile, on 07.07.2021, the Election Commission cancelled the election, which had been re-scheduled to be held on 09.07.2021. A Division Bench of this Court, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 25.10.2021, allowed W.A.1314 of 2021 and directed the 3rd respondent to take necessary steps to resume the election process pursuant to the initial notification which had been postponed by order dated 8.1.2021.

5. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, elections were notified on 30.1.2022 but were adjourned due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Election Commission, by Ext.P3 communication dated 14.3.2022, directed the Administrative Committee to adopt a fresh resolution indicating the date, time, and place of election. It is stated that the Administrative Committee did not heed the directions in Ext.P3, and the 3rd respondent was constrained to issue another communication on 6.4.2022, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P4. It is stated that Ext.P4 was also igno