SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74344


PETITIONER/S:
R. SURESH BABU
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. RAJAMANI, RESIDING AT EMMAUS HOUSE,
PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O, NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695122
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.V.BABY
SHRI.VINEETH P.BABY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION
CO-BANK TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695033
2 THE CIRCLE CO-OPERATIVE UNION
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), NEYYATTINKARA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695121
3 RETURNING OFFICER
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (AUDIT), NEYYATTINKARA, OFFICE
OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
(AUDIT), MINI CIVIL STATION, 3RD FLOOR,
NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -
695121
4 SUNIL KUMAR G.R
S/O GOPI R, SUNIL SADANAM, PAYARUMOODU, MULLOOR
P.O, VTC VIZHINJAM [PART], THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 IN IA NO.1/2025.
BY ADV SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V. Baby, Vineeth P. Baby
For the Respondents: Kavery S. Thampi

The rejection of a nomination paper on grounds not specified in the statutory rules is patently illegal, and this Court may, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, interfere with such rejection during the election process if it does not interrupt or obstruct the proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a nomination for the election to the Circle Co-operative Union. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination on the ground that the petitioner had acted as a proposer for another candidate in the same constituency, which the officer contended was impermissible. The petitioner challenged this rejection under Article 226, arguing that the rejection was illegal as no such disqualification exists in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The core issue was whether a candidate is disqualified from contesting if they have proposed another candidate for the same constituency and whether the High Court should intervene in an ongoing election process. The Court held that the right to contest is a statutory right, and in the absence of a specific provision in the Rules disqualifying a candidate for proposing another, the rejection was patently illegal. Relying on the principle that judicial intervention is permissible to correct patent illegalities that do not stall the election process, the Court held that the nomination rejection could be rectified. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the Returning Officer was directed to accept the petitioner's nomination.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to the rejection of the nomination paper. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. parties' contentions regarding the legality of the rejection and writ jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
3. statutory analysis of rule 129 and finding the rejection of nomination as illegal. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. scope of judicial intervention in election matters under article 226. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

PETITIONER/S:

R. SURESH BABU

AGED 43 YEARS

S/O. RAJAMANI, RESIDING AT EMMAUS HOUSE,

PLAMOOTTUKADA P.O, NEYYATTINKARA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695122

BY ADVS.

SHRI.P.V.BABY

SHRI.VINEETH P.BABY

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION

CO-BANK TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- REPRESENTED

BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695033

2 THE CIRCLE CO-OPERATIVE UNION

NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY

ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), NEYYATTINKARA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695121

3 RETURNING OFFICER

ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (AUDIT), NEYYATTINKARA, OFFICE

OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

(AUDIT), MINI CIVIL STATION, 3RD FLOOR,

NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN -

695121

4 SUNIL KUMAR G.R

S/O GOPI R, SUNIL SADANAM, PAYARUMOODU, MULLOOR

P.O, VTC VIZHINJAM [PART], THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

DISTRICT

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER

ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 IN IA NO.1/2025.

BY ADV SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR

ADMISSION ON 16.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

"CR"

K.BABU, J.

W.P.(C) No.33733 of 2025

Dated this the 16th day of September, 2025

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a member of the APCOS Employees Co-operative Society Ltd No. T.1323 at Plamoottukada, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram District. His membership number in the Society is 137. The Society is affiliated to the Circle Co-operative Union, Neyattinkara (respondent No.2).

2. The election to Respondent No.2 – Union was notified by Respondent No.1 through an election notification dated 30.07.2025, appointing Respondent No.3 as the Returning Officer and scheduling the election on 20.09.2025.

3. There are eight constituencies in the Circle Co operative Union, where from 11 members are to be elected to the Managing Committee.

4. Constituency B2 is reserved for the employees of the Primary and Apex Co-operative Societies under the Union.

5. The petitioner filed nomination to contest the election from Constituency B2 in the prescribed form. Sri M. Satheeshkumar (Member No. 138) proposed the petitioner’s nomination, and another member seconded it. Respondent No.3 received petitioner’s nomination.

6. Sri.M.Satheeshkumar who proposed the petitioner also filed nomination to the same constituency. The proposer of Sri.M.Satheeshkumar was the petitioner. Respondent No.3 received the nomination filed by Sri.M.Satheesh Kumar also.

7. Respondent No.3 published Ext.P3 dated 08.09.2025, the list of candidates who filed nominations, wherein the petitioner’s name is in Serial No.21 and M.Satheeshkumar’s name is included in Serial No.22.

8. In the scrutiny of the nominations held on 09.09.2025, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.3. After scrutiny, Ext.P5 list of candidates was published, wherein the names of the petitioner and Sri.M.Satheeshkumar were absent.

9. The case of the petitioner is that his nomination has been illegally rejected by respondent No.3. He seeks a direction to respondent No.3 to accept the same.

10. The candidate now available to contest in constituency B2 has been impleaded as additional respondent No.4.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and the learned counsel appearing for additional respondent No.4.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of petitioner’s nomination is patently illegal. The learned counsel submitted that in Ext.P5 proceedings, the Returning Officer has not stated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top