High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2012-01-06Dismissed

J Kamalasananan Pillai v. Puthakulam Sheerolpathaka Sahakaran Sangham Ltd. No. Q157(D)

Case / Petition Number:WPC.No.34778/2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date: 2012-01-06
Court Decision / Holding: No merit in the writ petition; the petition is dismissed. The court clarifies that removal of membership requires due process under Rule 16 and is not within the RO’s power at the draft list stage; the petitioner may pursue membership-removal or election-challenge through appropriate proceedings.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

J. Kamalasananan Pillai

Respondents

Puthakulam Sheerolpathaka Sahakaran Sangham Ltd. No. Q157(D), represented by its Secretary
Returning Officer, (The Dairy Extension Officer Chathanoor) Puthakulam Sheerolpathaka Sangham Ltd. No. Q157(D)
Deputy Director, Diary Development Office, Kollam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. V. Venugopalan Nair
• Sri. C. Unnikrishnan (Kollam)

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. D. Somasundaram, Special Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

J Kamalasananan Pillai, a member of the first respondent dairy cooperative, challenged Ext.P2 draft voters list, Ext.P5 final voters list, and Ext.P6 election notification issued by the Returning Officer for elections to the Managing Committee of the first respondent society scheduled on 11 January 2012. The Managing Committee had resolved to hold elections and requested the Deputy Director of Dairy Development to appoint a Returning Officer. The RO published Ext.P2 draft voters list containing 113 names and invited objections. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 objections contending that 28 persons named in Ext.P2 are ineligible to be enrolled as members because they reside outside the area of operation of the society, and he sought their deletion from the voters list. He also sought inclusion of four other persons. The objections were not accepted, leading to Ext.P5 final voters list published on 15.12.2011 and Ext.P6 notification of elections. The court analyzed the objection, noting the petition did not specify addresses for the 28 persons and that the RO cannot be expected to conduct a roving inquiry into membership; a division bench decision in Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar is cited to support the proposition that the RO’s remit is to determine eligibility to vote, not the membership status. It was held that removal of a voter from membership requires compliance with Rule 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. Consequently, the court found no merit and dismissed the petition, while leaving open remedies for membership removal or challenge to the election in appropriate proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

By-laws of the first respondent dairy cooperative societyRule 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Returning Officer’s remit is limited to eligibility to vote, not membership status
Removal of a voter from membership requires due process under Rule 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P2 draft voters list includes 28 persons who reside outside the area of operation of the first respondent society, rendering them ineligible to be members and thus should be deleted from the voters list. He seeks inclusion of four other names. He relies on the society by-laws defining the area of operation and argues the Returning Officer cannot rove through membership records; the dynamic procedure to remove members lies under Rule 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The objections to the draft list were not accepted, leading to finalization of the voters list and the election notification, which the petitioner seeks to void for illegality and improper inclusion/exclusion.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the bye-laws and the legal framework governing cooperative societies. They argue the Returning Officer’s remit is to determine eligibility to vote, not to adjudicate on membership removals, which require due process under Rule 16. The 28 challenged entries were not proven to be within the RO’s scope, and the objections were not accepted; the final voters list and election notification were issued lawfully as per the statutory framework. If the petitioner is aggrieved, appropriate remedies outside the present writ petition are available.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar	1996 (1) KLT 285	Positive	Cited to support that the Returning Officer is not to conduct roving inquiries into membership; RO’s scope is limited to determining eligibility to vote.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 J Kamalasananan Pillai v. Puthakulam Sheerolpathaka Sahakaran Sangham Ltd. No. Q157(D) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/16TH POUSHA 1933** **WPC.No. 34778 of 2011 (V)** **======================** **PETITIONER(S) : =============** **1. J.KAMALASANAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI SUSEELA MANDIRAM** , **POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)** **RESPONDENT(S) : ==============** **1. PUTHAKULAM SHEEROLPATHAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAMN LTD.NO.Q157(D), POOTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 302. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, (THE DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER CHATHANOOR) POOTHAKULAM SHEEROLPATHAKA SAHAKARANA SANGAM LTD.NO.Q 157(D), PUTHAKULAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 302.** **3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIARY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, KOLLAM - 689 001.** - **BY SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **AMV** ## **WPC.No. 34778 of 2011 (V)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :** |**P1.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BYLAW.**| |---|---|---| |**P2.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL VOTERS LIST DATED 07.12.2011**| |||**PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**P3.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE**| |||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.12.2011.**| |**P4.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE**| |||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED ON**| |||**15.12.2011.**| |**P5.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE FINAL VOTERS LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND**| |||**RESPONDENT**| |**P6.**|**:**|**COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND**| |||**RESPONDENT.**| ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A.TO JUDGE** **AMV** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No. 34778 OF 2011 -------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of January, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, a member of the first respondent dairy cooperative society, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 draft voters list, Ext.P5 final voters list and Ext.P6 notification issued by the second respondent Returning Officer whereby the Returning Officer proposes to hold a poll to elect members to the Managing Committee of the first respondent dairy co-operative society on 11.1.2012. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. The Managing Committee of the first respondent society presently in office resolved to hold elections to elect a new Managing Committee on 11.1.2012 and requested the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to appoint a Returning Office for that purpose. Thereupon the Deputy Director of Dairy Development appointed a Returning Officer. Pursuant thereto, the Managing Committee of the first respondent society prepared and forwarded a list of eligible members to the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer thereupon published WPC No.34778/2011 2 Ext.P2 draft voters list containing the names of 113 persons. He also called for objections to the draft voters list. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objection before the Retuning Officer wherein he contended that 28 persons named in Ext.P2 list are ineligible to be enrolled as members of the society for the reason that they are residing outside the area of operation of the first respondent society. He requested that their names should therefore be deleted from the voters list. He also sought inclusion of four members in the voters list. A similar complaint was sent to the third respondent also. The objections raised by the petitioner were not accepted and Ext.P5 final voters list was published on 15.12.2011. On the same day Ext.P6 election notification was issued proposing to hold the poll on 11.1.2012. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 draft voters list, Ext.P5 final voters list and Ext.P6 election notification on the ground that inclusion of the names of 28 persons, who according to the petitioner are ineligible to be members of the society, vitiates the voters list. Relying on the bye-laws of the first respondent society, it is contended that the area of operation of the first WPC No.34778/2011 3 respondent society comprises of two wards (Nellettil and Edayadi) of Poothakulam Panchayat, that the persons named in Ext.P3 objection are residing outside the area of operation of the first respondent society and therefore they are ineligible to be included in the voters list as eligible voters. 3. I heard Sri.V.Venugopalan Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Shorn of details, the objection raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 is that 28 persons named therein are residing outside the area of operation of the first respondent society. He has not stated with reference to each of the 28 persons that they are not residing within the area of operation of the first respondent society. He has only made a vague statement that they are residing outside the area of operation of the first respondent society. The petitioner has not chosen to give their addresses to substantiate his claim that they are residing in wards other than the wards which comprise the area of operation of the first WPC No.34778/2011 4 respondent society. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in **Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar** (1996 (1) KLT 285) the Returning Officer is not expected to make a roving enquiry and ascertain whether the enrolment of the 28 persons whose names included in the voters list is objectionable and thereafter take steps to remove them from the voters list. The Returning Officer can decide only whether the member whose name finds a place in the voters list is eligible to vote in the election. The eligibility of the voter to be a member and consequential steps to remove him or her from the membership of the society is not within the competence of the Returning Officer. The removal of a voter from the membership of a society can be achieved only after complying with the procedure prescribed in rule 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. That power is not available to the Returning Officer when he examines the objections to a draft voters list. Therefore for that reason also, I am of the opinion that the Returning Officer could not have held that the 28 persons named in Ext.P3 objections are ineligible to be the members and therefore they are not entitled to be included in the WPC No.34778/2011 5 voters list. As regards the four persons whose names are sought to be included, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot seek their inclusion in the voters list. It is for the member whose name is left out of the voters list, to press for inclusion of his name in the voters list. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. It fails and is dismissed. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the admission given to 28 persons named in Ext.P3 as members of the first respondent society, it will be open to him, notwithstanding the dismissal of this writ petition, to take appropriate steps to have the said persons removed form the membership of the first respondent society. Likewise, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the result of the election, he can challenge it in other appropriate proceedings. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE)** vps WPC No.34778/2011 6 WPC No.34778/2011 7