Electoral committees lack power to enroll members during supersession; only an elected committee can confer voting rights.

1. WP (C) No. 26225 of 2013 is filed by a member of the 6th respondent. Co - operative Bank, challenging the actions of the 7th respondent, the Administrative Committee, in enrolling members during its tenure. The Writ Petition also challenges Ext. P7 order of the Electoral Officer bearing No. 2724/2013 dated 18/10/2013. WP (C) Nos. 26652 of 2013 and 26698 of 2013 are Writ Petitions raising the very same challenge, however with a challenge, inter alia, of the acceptance of the nominations of respondents 4 to 13, impleaded in WP (C) No. 26652 of 2013, on the ground of their having ho valid membership in the Co - operative Bank. The Co - operative Bank as also the Administrative Committee have also filed a counter affidavit in WP (C) No. 26225 of 2013 and the respondents 4 to 13, whose nominations were challenged, have filed their counter affidavit in WP (C) No. 26652 of 2013. The Electoral Officer has also come forward with a counter affidavit in WP (C) No. 26225 of 2013. The counter affidavits shall be referred by the name of their deponents.

2. The respondent - society, being a Co - operative Bank, was incorporated in 2001, the Managing Committee of which was superseded as early as in 2007 respectively. Administrators and Administrative Committees were appointed and they have been continuing till date, the details of which are not relevant for the present Writ Petitions. Suffice it to say that an election has been declared to the Society as per Ext. P1 WP (C) No. 26698 of 2013, which is scheduled to be held on 14/11/2013. The draft voters list was published on 10/10/2013 and the time for filing of objections was till 17/10/2013. Admittedly, objections were filed by the petitioners, which were rejected by Ext.P7 order.

3. The objections were with respect to 675 members, who were said to be ineligible to participate in the said elections, by reason of their ineligibility to have membership in the society. The majority of the persons against whom objections were raised, numbering nearly 600, were said to be members appointed by the Administrative Committee. The remaining persons against whom objections were raised, were persons who had not remitted the additional enhanced amount of share value, which was brought in by way of a valid amendment. However, in considering the said objections, it is seen that the Electoral Officer has in 1st paragraph of Ext. P7 found that the exclusion of members who had not paid the enhanced share value was proper and their non - inclusion was perfectly legal. When the objection was with respect to inclusion of 78 members, who allegedly had not paid the enhanced share value and were said to have been removed by the Managing Committee, the consideration was with respect to the non - inclusion of members who were said to have been removed. In any event, it is to be noticed that the objections itself produced as Ext. P6 in WP (C) No. 26225 of 2013 and Ext. P3 in WP (C) No. 26698 of 2013 with respect to the inclusion are vague and not determinative, specific or definite. Hence, following the dictum laid down in Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar , 1996 (1) KLT 285 , the inclusion of the said 78 members having not been named, is found to be not a proper objection raised for consideration of the Electoral Officer. No interference to Ext.P7 is called for with respect to the said 78 members and the contentions of the respective parties are left to be agitated under S.69 of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinaft