Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20962
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
SOBHA SREEKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION – Respondent
WP(C)/3203/2021
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN, SMT.NISHA GEORGE, SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SRI.R.B.RAJESH, SRI.S.K.SAJU
Election processes in cooperative societies require clear evidence to substantiate claims of fraud; unverified allegations do not warrant interference with statutory electoral proceedings.
Headnote:
Election - Cooperative Society Elections - Sections of Cooperative Societies Act - Court examined authority and validity of electoral processes, dismissing challenges based on identity and nomination issues, confirming the legality of actions taken by the administrative committee.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner alleged that the 7th respondent, claiming to be a society member, was an imposter. The petition challenged the validity of election notifications amidst disputes regarding voter registration and acceptance of nominations, citing forgery and tampering with admission records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner's allegations to be baseless, noting the absence of credible evidence to support claims of forgery. It upheld the election process undertaken by the administrative committee, ruling that the proper procedures were followed.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the authenticity of the 7th respondent's membership, fraud allegations regarding voter registration, and the rejection of nominations based on alleged procedural errors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the integrity of election procedures must be maintained, emphasizing that allegations of fraud and misconduct should be substantiated with clear evidence, which was not provided by the petitioners.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioner in W.P(C).No.3203 of 2021 is a member of the 5th respondent society with membership number 1102. The society is a class X society and it was being administered by a managing committee of seven elected members. On the basis of the report of the Unit Inspector on 04.01.2019, the Joint Registrar issued a proceeding and a part time administrator was appointed. By Ext.P3, order dated 10.02.2020, it was substituted by an administrative committee comprised of 3 persons, which included the 7th respondent, one K.Geetha. In Ext.P3, the said Geetha was referred as “membership No.76” residing at Oriyarikonam, Plavila Veedu, Karipur P.O, Nedumangad. According to the petitioner, in fact the 7th respondent is not Geetha with membership No.76, whose address was shown as “Grace Bhavan, Karipur P.O, Nedumangad. The 7th respondent is a totally different person. The 7th respondent is one Geethakumari and is an elected member of the Nedumangad Municipality. Original Geetha, whose membership was No.76, belongs to Harijan community, whereas the 7th respondent herein belongs to Nair community. It was also contended that, the father's name of 7th respondent was Appukuttan Nair. Accordingly, the specific contention of the petitioner was that, the 7th respondent Geetha Kumari was not K.Geetha who was allotted membership No.76. It was also contended that the 7th respondent is hence not a member of the society. She has usurped the authority and is continuing the power based on forged documents. It was also stated that the admission register of the society was tampered with and the name and address of “Geetha, Grace Bhavan” was changed to suit the address of the 7th respondent.
2. In the meanwhile, pursuant to a decision of the administrative committee, Ext.P9 election notification was issued. The date of publication of voters list was on 15.01.2021. However, on that day, the draft voters list was not published under the directions of the Electoral Officer. It was understood that the draft list was published only on 25.01.2021. It was further contended that, the total member of voters in the previous election was 977 as evident from Ext.P10. After that election, the managing committee enrolled 148 new members increasing the total membership to 1125 members. Thereafter, the present administrative committee enrolled 125 new members and their names were also included in the draft voters list. Though Ext.P12 detailed objection was submitted to the Electoral Officer on 19.01.2021, no action was taken thereon.
3. According to the petitioner, since the committee has constituted with forged records, all decisions taken by the committee was non-est and liable to be interfered. According to the petitioner, notification was issued pursuant to the decision of the administrative committee which had no authority to take a decision. Hence, the prayer sought in the Writ Petition was to declare Ext.P9 notification as invalid, legally unsustainable and to quash it.
4. The writ petitioner in WP(C).No.1725 of 2021 has also filed W.P(C).3203 of 2021 along with five other members. The case of all the writ petitioners was that, the election to the administrative committee was proposed to be held on 20.01.2021. The petitioners appeared before the Secretary at 10.30p.m., on 04.02.2021, the date notified for receipt of nominations and submitted amount required to be deposited along with the nomination. However, it was not accepted. Thereafter, they submitted the nomination, which was accepted. In this circumstance, they were constrained to file nomination without deposit. The Secretary was acting under the dictates of the Managing Committee. Returning Officer by proceeding dated 06.02.2021, rejected the nominations on the ground that, they failed to remit the election deposit. The writ petitioner also raised objection regarding the 125 members who were added by the administrative committee. They challenged Ext.P3 and the decision of Electoral Officer in
