Right of a person whose nomination has been rejected to seek redress by certiorari could be invoked only after completion of election.

This petition is filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records connected with the proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee for the election of a Director to the Tiruchirappalli District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, dated 4th November, 1965, and for quashing the same as illegal and without jurisdiction.

The Tiruchirappalli District Co-operative Central Bank consists of 19 Directors. Out of the 19 Directors, 17 had already been elected. One Director has to be elected from the Lalgudi. Co-operative Supervising Union and another from individuals holding fixed deposits. The business year of the Bank begins from 1st January and ends by the 31st December. The term of office of elected members is three years; but it is provided that one-third number of members elected to the Board, at the first election shall retire at the end of the first year after such election and another one third number of members to retire in the second year. The members that are to retire are to be determined by lots cast by the Board. As a result of lots cast, the petitioner’s term as a Director of the Bank expired on 31st December, 1965. The petitioner wanted to be elected to the District Co-operative Central Bank from the Lalgudi Co-operative Supervising Union.

On 3rd November, 1965, the petitioner filed his nomination for election to the Central Bank. When the nominations were taken up for scrutiny by the Scrutinising Committee consisting of the first respondent, President of the Supervising Union, and respondents 2 to 5 the members of the Committee, an objection was raised to the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that he had seconded the nomination of the sixth respondent. This objection was upheld by respondents I to 5, and the nomination of the petitioner was rejected.

The petitioner questioned the correctness of the rejection of his nomination on the ground that he did not second the nomination of the sixth respondent for election to the Central Bank, but only for election to the governing body of the Union and that fraud was played upon him by changing the name in the nomination paper. This plea of the petitioner was rejected by the Scrutinising Committee. As this finding by the Scrutinising Committee is one of fact, it was rightly not raised before this Court.

The only contention raised in this Court was that even if the petitioner is found to have seconded the nomination of the sixth respondent for election to the Central Bank, that would not invalidate his nomination, as there is no prohibition against a candidate nominating another. The procedure as to elections is elaborately laid down in the Madras Co-operative Societies Rules, 1963. Rule 29, clause (5) relates to nomination of a candidate for election. It requires that the nomination should be made in Form No. 3 which will be supplied to any member free of cost on application. Form No. 3 requires the name of the society, admission number and name of the candidate, father’s name, and his address. The admission number and name of the seconder are also to be given. Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the list. The nomination papers should be presented in person to the president of the society before the date and hour specified. After receipt of the nomination paper, the person who receives it shall enter in the nomination paper the serial number and certify the date and hour at which the nomination paper was received by him and acknowledge receipt of the nomination paper. Rule 29, clause (6) relates to scrutiny and it enables the committee to examine the nomination papers and decide all objections which may be made at the time to any nomination and either on such objection or on its own motion after such summary enquiry if any, as the committee thinks necessary, reject any nominations for valid reasons. The committee is also required to record in writing a brief statement of its reasons for its rejection. Ap