JUDGMENT

Ravikumar, J.

The petitioner, who is the appellant in W.A. No. 1601 of 2020, has filed the captioned Contempt of Court case seeking initiation of Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents for willful disobedience of the directions of this Court in order dated 22.12.2020 in W.A. No. 1601 of 2020. The said order was passed after admitting the appeal on 22.12.2020 and upon forming the opinion that the following issue of relevance, also calls for consideration in the appeal:- “when a committee of a Co-operative Society passes a resolution for conducting election in terms of the provisions under Rule 35A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (for short the “Rules”) and forwarded it to the Joint Registrar, whether the Joint Registrar can withhold the same for any reason and decline to forward the same to the Kerala State Cooperative Election Commission.”

2. While passing the order dated 22.10.2020 we have also taken note of the fact that the Committee of the Society, which was then in office, had passed a fresh resolution on 26.11.2020 viz. Annexure 1, for conducting election to the new committee of the Society on 06.02.2021. However, the said Election Resolution was not forwarded by the Joint Registrar to the State Co-operative Election Commission. After identifying the aforesaid question as one of the issues that calls for consideration and with a view to keep the appeal carrying the said and allied questions alive and also for safeguarding the interest of the parties the second and third respondents were directed to forward Annexure 1 Election Resolution to the first respondent, viz., the State Cooperative Election Commission. It was made clear thereunder that the said action in forwarding the resolution as also consequential notification, if any, issued, will be subject to the result of this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

4. In the contempt case, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we issued notice to respondents 2 and 3 who are the alleged contemnors. They appeared and filed affidavits initially to dispense with the personal appearance. Thereafter, on 16.02.2021, both the alleged contemnors appeared before this Court. Recitals in paragraph 7 of their respective affidavits are to the effect that in the remarks column which is mandatory, the words 'Not reommended' are entered for the reason that the resolution was not in compliance with Rule 35A (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 1969 and in such circumstances, in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, the endorsement (not recommended) was inserted on the bona fide belief that as otherwise, it would cause hindrance in the matter of submission of election resolution through online platform. In their respective affidavits, at paragraph 7, they stated thus:-

Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit by the 2nd respondent: “7. It is humbly submitted that in compliance to the order of this Honourable Court, this respondent acted accordingly and the procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar(General), Kozhikode are detailed herein;

a) For submitting an election proposal there is an online platform created by State Co-operative Election Commission, b) The society has submitted its proposal through the online platform, c) On receiving the proposal it was verified and submitted to Election Commission on 07.01.2021.

d) There are mandatory and non-mandatory columns that are to be filled by Assistant Registrar (General) and the society concerned, e) In the remarks column which is mandatory, Assistant Registrar marked the words Not recommended for the reason that the resolution was not in compliance with Rule 35(A)(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, f) The Assistant Registrar (General), Kozhikode, Not recommended marked the words for the presumption that there will be hindrance in submitting online application if the remarks are happened to be against Rule

35(A)(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969.” Para