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

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1151

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P., J.
 
Vattavila Vijayakumar, S/o. Gangadharan – Petitioner 
Versus
The State Co-Operative Election Commission, Represented By Election Commissioner – Respondent 
WP(C) No. 7029 Of 2026, WP(C) No. 16968 of 2026
Decided On : 03-06-2026
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri. P.N. Mohanan, Sri. C.P. Sabari, Shri. Gilroy Rozario, Smt. Amrutha Suresh
For the Respondents: Sri. Suman Chakravarthy, SC, Hantex, Sri. Harisankar N. Unni, Sri. C.M Nazar (SC-KSCEC), Sri. P.C Sasidharan, Sri. S. Renjith (Spl. GP To AAG)

Statutory reservations for committee membership based on age and gender for co-operative societies are inapplicable to apex societies, as their membership is comprised solely of other societies. Procedural voter list requirements typically applicable to individual-member societies do not extend to the delegate-based electoral structures of apex societies.

Headnote:(A) Co-operative Societies Act - Section 2(a), Section 28(1CA) and Section 28A - Co-operative Societies Rules - Rule 35A(4) and Rule 44A - Election notification - Validity of reservation for apex societies - Statutory reservation for individuals based on age and gender under Section 28(1CA) is designed for societies with individual members and is incompatible with the structure of apex societies, which consist exclusively of other society members - Rule 35A(4) regarding voter list details is inapplicable to apex societies due to specific exemptions and the nature of the electorate. (Paras 8, 9, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the election notification issued for determining the managing committee of an apex society. The primary grievances were the failure to implement age and gender-based seat reservations for individuals as mandated by Section 28(1CA) and an alleged failure to adhere to specific procedural requirements for publishing the voters' list under Rule 35A(4).

Findings of Court:
The Court held that apex societies are defined by their membership consisting solely of other societies, not individuals. Consequently, individual-centric reservations based on age or gender, as prescribed for standard co-operative societies, are procedurally inapplicable. Furthermore, the procedural requirements for individual voters in standard elections do not apply to the delegate-based electoral process of apex societies.

Issues: The main issues were whether the mandatory individual-based reservations for committee members under the Act apply to apex societies and whether procedural requirements for voter list publication extend to the election of delegates within an apex structure.

Ratio Decidendi: Because the electorate and representative membership of an apex society are restricted to other societies rather than individuals, the statutory framework providing for age and gender-specific reservations for individuals cannot be functionally applied. Similarly, administrative exemptions apply to the publication requirements of voter lists in such contexts.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

W.P(C)No.7029 of 2026 has been filed challenging Ext.P2 notification issued by the State Co-operative Election Commission to the Managing Committee of Kerala State Handloom Weavers (HANTEX) Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the HANTEX') on the ground that the notification is contrary to the provisions of sub-section (1CA) of Section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Act’). The petitioner has also raised a contention that the voters' list, which is on record as Ext.P7, has been published by the Electoral Officer, violating the provisions contained in Rule 35A (4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1969 Rules’). The petitioner is thus before this Court to quash Exts.P2 and P7 and for a direction to the State Co-operative Election Commission to issue a fresh election notification in compliance with the mandate of Section 28 (1CA) of the 1969 Act and for a further direction to respondents 2 to 4 to publish the voters' list strictly following the mandate of Rule 35A (4) of the 1969 Rules. The petitioner has also sought a direction that certain societies included in the voters’ list be removed from the list.

2. W.P(C)No. 16968 of 2026 has been filed challenging the election notification on the ground that the notification is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 28 (1CA) of the 1969 Act.

3. Sri. P. N. Mohanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)No.7029 of 2026, would refer to the provisions of Section 28 (1CA) and Section 28A of the 1969 Act and also to the provisions of Rule 35A (4) of the 1969 Rules to contend that Ext.P2 notification and Ext.P7 voters’ list are liable to be interfered with. It is submitted that Section 28 (1CA) of the 1969 Act was introduced by way of amendment inserted vide the Act No.9 of 2024 dated 07.06.2024. It is submitted that after the introduction of Section 28 (1CA) of the 1969 Act, every election notification must contain provisions for providing the reservations as contemplated by the provisions of Section 28 (1CA) of the 1969 Act. It is submitted that where the election notification itself is contrary to the law, the entire process of election commencing from the issuance of the notification should be declared illegal. It is submitted that no objection can be taken to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the challenge must be raised in an election petition. The learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 363, and in particular to paragraph 25 thereof, to contend that where the election notification itself is contrary to law, every proceeding following that notification is also bad in law. It is submitted that the said decision is also authority for the proposition that where the notification itself is not in accordance with the law, the Election Commission and any contesting respondent cannot be heard to contend that the proceedings before this Court should not be concluded on merits and the party should be relegated to the remedy of an election petition. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 28 (1CA) of the 1969 Act intend to provide representation for the persons below the age of 40 on the managing committee of each society and further provide that one such member below the age of 40 shall also be a woman. It is submitted that where the election notification seeks to defeat legislative mandate, the said notification must be set aside. The learned counsel has also handed over to me the notifications issued by the State Co-operative Election Commission for election to the Venkulam H.W.C (P & S) Society and the Kollode Handloom Polyester Weavers Co-operative Society issued on 17.02.2026 and 11.02.2026 respectively to contend that the Election Commission had clearly taken into consideration the mandate

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