Abdul Rahim and Shaji v. State of Kerala and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Devan Ramachandran
- Judgment Date
- 2019-08-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition was allowed in part. The Court noted the petitioners’ concern about delay in newspaper publication and the mandatory publication requirements under Rule 35(A)(3) of the KCS Rules, but it did not stay the election process. It directed the petitioners to appear before the Election Commission on 24 August 2019 to have their objections—including those relating to the preliminary and final voters lists and the Ext.P1 publication—considered, with appropriate proceedings to be issued not later than the evening of that day. The court left open the possibility of further action after that hearing and allowed the election to proceed pending those proceedings.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition allowed in part; directions issued for hearing of objections on 24 August 2019; election to proceed subject to further orders after consideration of objections.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Abdul Rahim aged 50 years s/o. Ibrahim Kannu, Ansa Cottage, Mechira Killi, Kollode P.O., Kattaikada, Trivandrum District 695 571
- Shaji, aged 45 years s/o. Hussanaru Pillai, Vilayil Veedu, Killi, Kollode P.O., 65571, Kattakada, Trivandrum District 695 571
Respondents
- State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Co-operative Department, Govt. Secretariat, M.G. Road, Trivandrum 695 001
- The Registrar of Co-operative Society, Trivandrum 695 001
- State Election Commission for Co-operative Societies, Co-operative Tower, Trivandrum 695 001
- Kattakada Milk Marketing (Ksheera Vivasya) Co-operative Society Ltd. No. 3869, Kattakada, Trivandrum District, represented by its Present President, 695571
- The Secretary, Kattakada Milk Marketing Co-operative Society Ltd., Kattakada P.O., 695 571
- Milk Marketing Officer, Vellanadu Block, Trivandrum 695 553
- Dairy Farm Instructor, Vellanadu Block, Trivandrum 695 553
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. M. Ramaswamy Pillai
- • Sri. K. Rajesh Kannan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayan
- • Smt. C. S. Sheeja, Sr. GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners, Abdul Rahim and Shaji, members of the Kattakada Milk Marketing (Ksheera Vivasya) Co-operative Society Ltd., challenged Ext.P1, the election notification issued by the State Cooperative Election Commission for the Society’s Managing Committee. They contended the notification was published beyond the period allowed under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, thereby depriving members of a meaningful opportunity to challenge the preliminary voters list. Ext.P1 bears the date 16 July 2019 but was published in newspapers only on 30 July 2019; the petition argued this delay undermined the schedule for publishing the preliminary voters list and vitiated the election process. Respondents argued that Ext.R3 evidence shows the notification was published in two vernacular dailies (Kerala Koumudy on 28 July 2019 and Veekshanam on 30 July 2019), with the preliminary voters list published on 27 July 2019 and a final list on 3 August 2019; they maintained that Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides a statutory remedy and urged dismissal, noting that the election process had already begun and polling was scheduled for 27 August 2019. The Court acknowledged a forceful argument about Rule 35(A)(3) requiring publication in two vernacular dailies but declined to halt the process, citing no demonstrable prejudice. It directed a hearing on 24 August 2019 to consider objections to the lists and Ext.P1 publication, permitting the election to proceed pending further orders.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners argued that Ext.P1 Election Notification was published beyond the period permitted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules, depriving members of time to raise objections to the preliminary voters list and undermining the integrity of the electoral process. They urged cancellation or meaningful alteration of the process to ensure compliance with statutory timelines and to safeguard the rights to object to electoral lists.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that the Election Notification was published in two vernacular dailies within the specified timeframe, that preliminary and final voters lists were published in accordance with the schedule, that the petition had statutory remedies under Section 69 of the KCS Act, and that the Court should not interfere with the election process given the impending polling.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shri Sant Sadguru v. State of Maharashtra and Others | 2001(8) SCC 509 | Mentioned Only | Cited by the Court to contextualize the approach to not interdict ongoing electoral processes; used as persuasive authority rather than as controlling ratio. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Rahim and Shaji v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.