High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-23Writ petition allowed; Ext.P2 quashed; final vo...

K. Sasidharan v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 36452 of 2016 (F)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2016-11-23
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed; Ext.P2 is quashed. The Electoral Officer shall publish the final voters’ list by 30.11.2016 with regard to objections received. The Election Commission shall re-notify the election forthwith, reckoning the date of publication of the final voters’ list as 30.11.2016. If the term of the present Managing Committee expires before completion of the election process, the fourth respondent shall permit three among the Managing Committee members to function as an Administrative Committee until the new committee takes charge. This judgment does not preclude the fifth respondent from pursuing statutory remedies available to him.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P2 quashed; final voters list to be published by 30.11.2016; re-notification of election; possible Administrative Committee if term ends early; statutory remedies remain available to the fifth respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Sasidharan

Respondents

Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
The Returning Appointed for the Elections to the Urukunnu Rural Co-operative Society Ltd No.Q1468, P.O. Urukunnu, Punalur Taluk, Kollam District (Office Inspector/Superintendent) O/O the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Punalur
The Urukunnu Rural Co-operative Society Ltd No.Q1468, P.O. Urukunnu, Punalur Taluk, Kollam District, represented by its Secretary
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kollam
Sarath Kumar S., impleaded as per order dated 17.11.2016

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri K. Ramakumar (Sr.)
• Sri T. Ramprasad Unni
• Sri S. M. Prasanth
• Smt. Asha Babu
• Smt. R.S. Aswini Sankar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K. S. Mohammed Hashim
• Sri P. C. Sasidharan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ext.P2, an order of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission, adjourned the election for Urukunnu Rural Co-operative Society Ltd on the ground that there was no general body decision to conduct elections and that a Government Order exempted certain provisions. The petitioner challenges Ext.P2, arguing that the election process had already commenced with Ext.P1, including publication of the election notification and the preliminary voters’ list (02.11.2016), with objections allowed and a final list due (11.11.2016). The judgment cites the settled principle that once the election process has begun, courts should refrain from interfering with the process, as reaffirmed in Shaji K. Joseph v. Viswanath (2016) 4 SCC 429. It also notes that Ext.P2 relies on grounds such as Sections 16A and 19A and GO 100/2016 to justify adjourning, but these reasons are deemed insufficient to meddle with the ongoing process, especially with the term of the current Managing Committee expiring on 09.12.2016. The court holds that the electoral process cannot be delayed to “verify” the voters’ list in this manner and directs the Electoral Officer to publish the final voters’ list by 30.11.2016 and to re-notify the election forthwith. If the term expires earlier, an Administrative Committee can be formed. The fifth respondent may pursue statutory remedies independently of this judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 29(1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies ActSections 16A and 19A of the Kerala Cooperative Societies ActRegulation 20 of the RegulationsGO.(P).No.100/2016 dated 18.10.2016Section 5 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Once the election process has commenced, courts should not interfere with the election; interdicting the process may prevent completion of the election
High Court should not interfere with election after the process has begun; the remedy lies in statutory channels (Section 5, Regulation 20)
The basic purpose of elections is to elect a body to run the administration within the statutory term

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P2, which adjourned the election sine die, is an improper interference with an election process that had already commenced under Ext.P1. The election programme, publication of the preliminary voters’ list on 02.11.2016, and the opportunity to raise objections, culminate in a final voters list scheduled for publication on 11.11.2016. The grounds cited in Ext.P2—lack of a general-body decision under Section 29(1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, and exemptions under GO 100/2016—do not justify delaying a process already set in motion. The remedy under Section 5 of the Act and Regulation 20 of the Regulations is not a justification to stall the process; rather, disputes and objections should be addressed within the statutory framework after completion of the process. The applicant argues that the term of the current Managing Committee ends on 09.12.2016, and delaying the election undermines the constitutional objective of timely governance of the society.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Ext.P2 was warranted because there was no clear decision by the society’s general body to conduct elections, and GO 100/2016 exempts certain societies from the requirements of Sections 16A and 19A, necessitating verification of the preliminary voters’ list by the Electoral Officer. They emphasize that the election process, including verification and finalization of the voters list, must adhere to statutory requirements and ensure fairness, which may require extending proceedings or delaying the election until the list is verified and corrected. They contend that the public interest in proper election preparation justifies postponement and that the High Court should exercise caution rather than mandate immediate re-notification. They also point to the availability of statutory remedies for the fifth respondent’s grievances and to the fact that the process should not proceed under disputed circumstances without proper verification.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shaji K. Joseph v. Viswanath	(2016) 4 SCC 429	Positive	Cited to support the principle that once the election process begins, courts should not interfere with the process and should defer to statutory remedies.

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 K. Sasidharan v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission & Ors. 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.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 36452 of 2016 (F)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **-------------** **K.SASIDHARAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SADANANDAN, PRESIDENT, URUKUNNU RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. Q1468, P.O.URUKUNNU, PUNALUR TALUK,KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT PALAKKUNATHU VEEDU, URUKUNNU P.O., PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 307.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **2. THE RETURNING APPOINTED FOR THE ELECTIONS TO THE URUKUNNU RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.Q1468, P.O.URUKUNNU, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT (THE OFFICE INSPECTOR(SUPERINTENDENT) O/O THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PUNALUR)** **3. THE URUKUNNU RURAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD NO.Q1468, P.O.URUKUNNU, PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM 691 001.** - **ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED** **5. SARATH KUMAR S., AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SASANKAN, RESIDING AT SARATH BHAVAN, OTTAKKAL PO., PUNALUR, KOLLAM.** *** IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.17.11.2016 IIN IA.18887/2016** **R1 & R2 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv//** **WP(C).No. 36452 of 2016 (F) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 17/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 10/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.** **------------------------------------------------** **W.P.(C) No.36452 of 2016 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of November, 2016** ## **JUDGMENT** Ext.P2 order, by which the Kerala State Cooperative Election Commission (the Election Commission) has adjourned the further proceedings of the election notified to the Managing Committee of the third respondent Society (the Society), is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. It is seen that on the basis of the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the Society and on the recommendation of the concerned Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Election Commission has appointed an Electoral Officer as also a Returning Officer for conducting election to form a new Managing Committee W.P.(C) No.36452 of 2016 -2- for the Society. Ext.P1 is the order issued by the Election Commission in this connection. The election notification to be published was also approved as per Ext.P1 order. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, the election notification was published and as provided for in the notification, the preliminary voters' list was published on 02.11.2016. Time has been granted as per the notification to raise objections against the preliminary voters' list till 09.11.2016. The final voters' list was to be published as per the terms of the notification, on 11.11.2016. In the meanwhile, on 10.11.2016, the Election Commission adjourned the election _sine die_ as per Ext.P2 order. Ext.P2 order is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Special Government Pleader. 4. It is trite that once the election process is commenced, the same shall not be interfered with even by courts at the instance of persons who have alternative statutory remedies for redressal of their grievances. The W.P.(C) No.36452 of 2016 -3- said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in **Shaji K.Joseph v. Viswanath** [(2016)4 SCC 429]. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment reads thus: “In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election programme on 27.1.2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent 1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent 1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent 1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard W.P.(C) No.36452 of 2016 -4- to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.” A perusal of Ext.P2 order indicates that the additional fifth respondent, who is a member of the Society, has preferred a complaint before the Election Commission stating that there was no decision by the general body to conduct election, as provided for in Section 29(1) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act (the Act), and the same is one of the reasons for adjourning the election. It is also mentioned in Ext.P2 order that as per GO.(P).No.100/2016 dated 18.10.2016, Societies which could not comply with the provisions contained in Sections 16A and 19A of the Act have been exempted from the purview of the said provisions and that therefore, the preliminary voters' list published by the Electoral Officer need to be verified for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same is one prepared in accordance with the said Government Order. According to me, the aforesaid reasons are not sufficient to meddle with the election, the process of which has already W.P.(C) No.36452 of 2016 -5- commenced. The term of the present Managing Committee expires on 09.12.2016. Even if there is no decision in the last general body of the Society to conduct election, the election has to be conducted as the elected committee cannot continue in office beyond their statutory term. Further, after the commencement of the election process, the Election Commission cannot adjourn the election to ensure the correctness of the preliminary voters' list as the same is a function assigned to the Electoral Officer after considering the objections of the members of the Society as per the terms of the election notification. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P2 order is quashed and the Electoral Officer appointed by the Election Commission is directed to publish the final voters' list, having regard to the objections received by him. The date for publishing the final voters' is fixed as 30.11.2016. The Election Commission shall re-notify the election forthwith reckoning the date of publication of the W.P.(C) No.36452 of 2016 -6- final voters' list as 30.11.2016. If the term of the present Managing Committee expires before completion of the election process, the fourth respondent shall permit three among the members of the Managing Committee to function as an Administrative Committee till the new committee takes charge in the Society. It is made clear that this judgment will not preclude the fifth respondent from taking recourse to the statutory remedies available to him against the election. It is also made clear that in the event of the fifth respondent invoking the statutory remedies, the authorities concerned shall deal with the same untrammelled by the findings in this judgment. Sd/- **P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** bpr (true copy)