Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 56405
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Murali Purushothaman, J
SUJA L, SIMI V, NISHA U – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43328 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G.KEERTHIVAS, VIDHYA SANKAR
For the Respondents: C.M. NAZAR, R.T. PRADEEP, SMT.ANIMA
Nominations for elections to cooperative societies cannot be rejected on trivial grounds; defects must be of substantial character to warrant rejection, affirming the need for compliance with statutory requirements.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 28B - Election procedure for Co-operative Societies - Petitioners, Class A members, challenged rejection of their nominations for elections to the Managing Committee on grounds of trivial defects. Court held that rejection was valid as defects were of substantial character. (Paras 1, 5, 15, 18)
(B) Election Law - Validity of Nominations - Court emphasized that nominations must meet statutory requirements and that minor inaccuracies do not justify rejection unless they affect the identity of the candidate. (Paras 12, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners submitted nominations for elections to the Nellimoodu Vanitha Co-operative Society, which were rejected by the Returning Officer without substantial justification. They contended that the rejection was arbitrary and undermined electoral integrity.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the grounds for rejection were valid as they constituted defects of substantial character, and thus, the nominations were rightly rejected.
Issues: The main issues were whether the reasons for rejecting the nominations were arbitrary and if the defects were substantial enough to warrant rejection.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that minor inaccuracies do not justify rejection unless they affect the identity of the candidate, but in this case, the defects were substantial enough to validate the rejection of nominations.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility and process of nominations in cooperative society elections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. legal arguments against the rejection of nominations. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. court's examination of nomination rejection grounds. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. arguments on maintainability and alternative remedies. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. final judgment on the legality of nomination rejections. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are Class A members of the 6th respondent, Nellimoodu Vanitha Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T-1334 (for short 'the Society'). Class A members of the Society are eligible to vote and contest election to the Managing Committee of the Society. The State Co-operative Election Commission, issued Ext.P4 notification for election to the Managing Committee of the Society in terms of Section 28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) read with Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules'). The number of vacancies (seats) to be filled up by election is notified as '7', comprising four seats under the general category, one seat for SC/ST category and two seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years. As per the election programme, the date for making nominations was 28.11.2024 and the scrutiny of nominations was slated on 29.11.2024. The date for withdrawal of nominations was fixed as 30.11.2024 and the notified date for poll is 15.12.2024.
2. The petitioners submitted their nomination papers on 28.11.2024; the 1st petitioner to contest in the general category, the 2nd petitioner in the seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 year and the 3rd petitioner in the category reserved for SC/ST. The nominations were filed in the prescribed form, and the petitioners made the required deposit under Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Rules as evidenced by Exts. P5 to P7 receipts. Altogether 13 nominations were received. Ext. P8 is the list of nominations received and published by the Returning Officer, the 5th respondent.
3. The scrutiny of nominations was conducted by the Returning Officer on 29.11.2024. The petitioners state that the scrutiny, which commenced at 11:00 a.m., was completed by 11:30 a.m., and their nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioners further state that no reason whatsoever was provided for rejecting their nominations. Ext. P9 is the list of validly nominated candidates. There are 9 valid nominations. Before the expiry of the time fixed for withdrawal of candidatures, two candidates withdrew their nomination. Ext. P11 is the final list of contesting candidates which included only 7 seven candidates for the 7 seats notified for election.
4. As per Rule 35A(6)(h) of the Rules, if the number of validly nominated candidates in a constituency does not exceed the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall, on the day fixed for the election, declare them as duly elected to the Committee. Against the 4 seats coming under the general category, there are only 4 contesting candidates, and against one seat reserved for SC/ST, there is only one candidate and against the two seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years, there are only two candidates. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 35A(6)(h) of the Rules, all the persons listed in Ext. P11 will be declared duly elected to their respective constituencies on 15.12.2024, the day fixed for the election.
5. The petitioners submit that rejection of their nominations is illegal and arbitrary and woul undermine the integrity of the election process. It is contended that a candidate's presence during the scrutiny is not mandatory and the rejection of their nominations solely due to their brief absence is arbitrary and unwarranted. It is further stated that the petitioners have been unlawfully excluded from the list of candidates thereby eliminating healthy electoral competition in violation of the provisions
