Rejection of a nomination is unlawful if no specific disqualifying provision exists, affirming the statutory right to contest elections.

JUDGMENT :

K. BABU, J.

The petitioner is a member of the APCOS Employees Co-operative Society Ltd No. T.1323 at Plamoottukada, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram District. His membership number in the Society is 137. The Society is affiliated to the Circle Co-operative Union, Neyattinkara (respondent No.2).

2. The election to Respondent No.2 – Union was notified by Respondent No.1 through an election notification dated 30.07.2025, appointing Respondent No.3 as the Returning Officer and scheduling the election on 20.09.2025.

3. There are eight constituencies in the Circle Co-operative Union, where from 11 members are to be elected to the Managing Committee.

4. Constituency B2 is reserved for the employees of the Primary and Apex Co-operative Societies under the Union.

5. The petitioner filed nomination to contest the election from Constituency B2 in the prescribed form. Sri M. Satheeshkumar (Member No. 138) proposed the petitioner’s nomination, and another member seconded it. Respondent No.3 received petitioner’s nomination.

6. Sri.M.Satheeshkumar who proposed the petitioner also filed nomination to the same constituency. The proposer of Sri.M.Satheeshkumar was the petitioner. Respondent No.3 received the nomination filed by Sri.M.Satheesh Kumar also.

7. Respondent No.3 published Ext.P3 dated 08.09.2025, the list of candidates who filed nominations, wherein the petitioner’s name is in Serial No.21 and M.Satheeshkumar’s name is included in Serial No.22.

8. In the scrutiny of the nominations held on 09.09.2025, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.3. After scrutiny, Ext.P5 list of candidates was published, wherein the names of the petitioner and Sri.M.Satheeshkumar were absent.

9. The case of the petitioner is that his nomination has been illegally rejected by respondent No.3. He seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to accept the same.

10. The candidate now available to contest in constituency B2 has been impleaded as additional respondent No.4.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned counsel appearing for additional respondent No.4.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of petitioner’s nomination is patently illegal. The learned counsel submitted that in Ext.P5 proceedings, the Returning Officer has not stated any reason for rejection of the nomination. It is submitted that the petitioner was orally informed that his nomination was rejected on the ground that the proposer to his nomination, Sri.M.Satheeshkumar, himself submitted a nomination to contest in the same constituency whereas petitioner was the proposer to his nomination.

13. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that it is impermissible for a proposer to a nomination to contest as a candidate in the same constituency and a candidate who files a nomination cannot propose another candidate for the same constituency. 14. The learned counsel for additional respondent No.4 submitted that when an election is for a single post, there is impropriety in one person filing nomination and proposing another person to contest for the same post in the same constituency. The learned counsel further submitted that allowing the Writ Petition on the verge of the election would disturb the process of election.

15. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 69 (3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 , by filing an Election Petition. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that a Writ Cou