JUDGMENT :

Sri. George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt. Nisha George, appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the rejection of the nominations of his clients is for reasons that are contrary to Ext.P1 notification.

2. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, while the rejection of nominations of petitioners 1 and 2 is on the ground that they could not have offered their candidature without having obtained a loan from the Society, going by its Bye-laws; as far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, the finding that they are in arrears of loans is also incorrect. He contended that, as far as petitioner No.3 is concerned, admittedly, going by the rejection, she has been shown to be in arrears only from July, 2024; and that it is manifest that she has not been issued with a notice as required under the Statutory Scheme. He thus prayed that his clients be allowed to participate in the Elections, for which, their nominations be ordered to be accepted.

3. Sri. C.M. Nazar – learned Standing Counsel for the State Cooperative Election Commission (‘Election Commission’, for short), however, submitted that the rejection of the candidature of petitioner No.4