Chithrangathan K. v. Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies, Kannur; State Co-operative Election Commission; Returning Officer; Kannur Tourism Co-operative Society Limited; Kannur Urban Co-operative Society Limited

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2017/28TH ASHADHA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 22961 of 2017 (U) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** ## **CHITHRANGATHAN K.,** **AGED 52 YEARS, S/O LATE RAJAN K., SUCHIRASS BHAVAN, THAYYIL P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, MEMBER NO. A 126 OF THE KANNUR TOURISM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. C 1560.** **BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.T.RESHMA SMT.S.SIKKY SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KANNUR-670001.** **2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.** **3. THE RETURNING OFFICER** **(UNIT INSPECTOR, KANNUR -1, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) KANNUR) ELECTION TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF KANNUR TOURISM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. C 1560.** **WP(C).No. 22961 of 2017 (U)** ## **---------------------------** **4. THE KANNUR TOURISM CO-OPERATIVE** - **SOCIETY LIMITED NO. C 1560, SREE KRISHNA COMPLEX, ONDEN ROAD, KANNUR - 670 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **5. KANNUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE** - **SOCIETY LTD. NO. C 1711, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR - 670 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **EL** ## **WP(C).No. 22961 of 2017 (U)** ## **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION NOTIFICATION NO.E(2)2965/2017/SCEC DATED 02.6.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 05.7.2017. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 28.6.2017 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29.6.2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 5499/2017/ DATED 07.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06.7.2017. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **EL** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** ----------------------------------------------- **W.P.(C). No.22961 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of July, 2017** ## **JUDGMENT** Petitioner is a member of the 4[th] respondent society. The election to the Managing Committee of the 4[th] respondent has been notified by the 2[nd] respondent as per Ext.P1. The date of nomination was on 5.7.2017 and the scrutiny was on 6.7.2017. Petitioner, who is fully qualified to vote and contest the election as per Ext.P1, submitted his nomination to the seat reserved for candidates from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community on 5.7.2017. However, the nomination was rejected as per Ext.P6 for want of requisite exemption under rule 44(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The facts are, petitioner who is working as Attender in the 5[th] respondent society has submitted an application for sanction to contest in the election to the 4[th] respondent and 5[th] respondent vide resolution dated 28.6.2017 resolved to request to the 1[st] respondent to permit the petitioner to contest the election, W.P.(C). No.22961 of 2017 2 by granting him exemption from rule 44(1)(f) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. According to the petitioner, though Ext.P4 request was submitted one week prior to the date of scrutiny, the 1[st] respondent for reasons best known to him, purposefully delayed the issuance of exemption and issued the same to him only the next day as per Ext.P5, which has resulted in rejection of nomination as per Ext.P6. It is thus challenging Ext.P6 and seeking other consequential reliefs this writ petition is filed. 2. A statement is filed for and on behalf of the 1[st] respondent and among other contentions it is stated that, the application was received by the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Kannur only on 3.7.2017 and the office seal with date affixed in the application evidences this fact. The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies forwarded the petitioner's application to the office of the 1[st] respondent. The tapal registry of the office shows the date of receipt of the petitioner's W.P.(C). No.22961 of 2017 3 application forwarded by the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies on 5.7.2017. The 1[st] respondent was on office tour from 4.7.2016 to 6.7.2017 and on returning to duty on 7.7.2017, the application was considered and exemption was granted. Other contentions raised by the petitioner with respect to the malafides on the part of the respondents in processing the application belatedly are all denied by the 1[st] respondent. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 4. The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted to the present situation having submitted the exemption belatedly i.e., after the last date of nomination and also scrutiny. The fact remains the election was notified, the draft list of the members eligible to vote was prepared, final voters' list was published and the election is to take place on 23.7.2017. Since the election W.P.(C). No.22961 of 2017 4 processes are on, it is not proper on the part of this court to interfere in the election process in any manner. This was so held by the Apex Court in **Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra** [(2001) 8 SCC 509] and the said proposition of law was followed by the Apex Court in **Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath** [(2016) 4 SCC 429]. That apart, even according to the petitioner, the exemption order was secured only on 7.7.2017 and therefore, it cannot be said that the rejection of nomination as per Ext.P6 on the date fixed for scrutiny suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or illegality justifying interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it has reached the office of the Assistant Registrar only on 3.3.2017 and apparently the same was forwarded to the 1[st] respondent on 5.5.2017 and since 1[st] respondent was on official tour till 6.6.2017, the same could be considered only on 7.7.2017. Therefore, in that regard also, any manner of gross illegality can be attributed against the 1[st] W.P.(C). No.22961 of 2017 5 ## respondent from the available facts and circumstances. That being the situation, I do not think, petitioner has made out any case warranting or justifying interference of this court at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, I dismiss the writ petition, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to pursue any suitable action in accordance with law. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** smv 19.7.2017