K.K. Raveendran Pillai v State Co-Operative Election Commission & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 11TH MAGHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **K.K.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 72 YEARS S/O.PARAMESHWARAN PILLAI, MEMBER AND DELEGATE OF: PANAVALLY HWCS NO.H142, POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 526, RESIDING AT MANOJ NIVAS, POOCHAKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA - 688 526.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SRI.N.ANAND SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, III FLOOR, CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **2 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H232 (HANTEX), GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, VELLYAMBALAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.** - **3 THE RETURNING OFFICER/KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H232(HANTEX), DEPUTY REGISTRAR, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.** - **4 THE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H232 (HANTEX), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.B.NO.64, OOTTUKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 685 001.** - **5 K.MANOHARAN, DELEGATE FROM KUTHUPARAMBU W.C.(P AND S) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.LL 85, KUTHUPARAMBU P.O., KANNUR - 670 643.** WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 2 - **6 T.S.BABY,DELEGATE FROM PARAVUR H.W.CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(P AND S) LTD.NO.3428, NORTH PARAVUR TOWN P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 513.** - **7 C.BALAN, DELEGATE FROM BADAGARA W.C. (P AND S) S., LTD.NO.F 1013, BADAGARA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 101.** - **8 K.R.GOPI, DELEGATE FROM CHANGANASSERY TALUK HCWS, LTD.NO.H 123, MADAPPALLY P.O., CHANGASSERY - 686 546.** - **9 K.P.KUMARAN, DELEGATE FROM ERAMALA W.INDL(WORKSHOP) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.HL IND(D) 245, ERAMALA P.O., BADAGARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 501.** - **10 R.RAMASWAMY, DELEGATE FROM MARLAD W.C. (P AND S) S., LTD.NO.F 1623, PUTHUCODE P.O., PALAKKAD - 678 687.** - **11 KOLLON MOHANAN, DELEGATE FROM CHIRAKKAL W.C.(P AND S) S., LTD.NO.F 1291, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR - 670 011.** - **12 V.K.VIJAYAN, DELEGATE FROM KANNAPURAM W.I. (WORKSHOP) C.S. LTD.NO.H L IND (C) 22, MOTTAMMAL P.O., KANNUR - 670 521.** - **13 S.PRAKASHAN, DELEGATE FROM CHATHANNOOR H.W.INDL (WORKSHOP), C.S.LTD.NO.QH3, CHATHANOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 572.** - **14 K.K.VIJAYAN, DELEGATE FROM LOURDIPURAM H.W.C.S.LTD.NO.H 81, NELLIKKAKUZHY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 524.** - **15 S.SHASHIBHUSHAN, DELEGATE FROM UCHAKKADA H.W.C. (P AND S) S.LTD.NO.3702, KIDARAKUZHI, KIDARAKUZHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 523.** - **16 N.RAVEENDRAN, DELEGATE FROM VINAYAKAR W.I.C.S.LTD.NO.H 212, PARAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 301.** - **17 T.RAJIV,** - **DELEGATE FROM KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK** - **H.W.C.S.LTD.NO.QH2, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM - 690 518.** WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 3 **18 N.RATHEENDRAN, DELEGATE FROM MANGALAKKAL H.W.C. (P AND S) S LTD.NO.H 23, KATTAKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501.** - **19 KALIYOOR K.SREEDHARAN, DELEGATE FROM SOUPARNIKA HWCS T 690, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O., NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 042.** - **20 V.RAMACHANDRAN, DELEGATE FROM THITTAVELIKKARA HWCS LTD.NO.3369, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501.** - **21 T.C.RADHA, DELEGATE FROM CHOMBAL W.C. (P AND S) S LTD.NO.43, CHOMBALA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 308.** - **22 D.GIRIJADEVI, DELEGATE FROM KOTTATHALA H.W.INDL (WORKSHOP) C.S.LTD.NO.QH4, KOTTATHALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM - 691 566.** - **23 P.OMANA, DELEGATE FROM KALLUNADU H.W.C.S.LTD.NO.H 146, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501.** **24 D.BAHULEYAN, DELEGATE FROM BALARAMAPURAM HARIJAN (PATTIKAJATHI) H.W.C.S.LTD.NO.T 357, KATTACHALKUZHI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501.** **25 AJAYAKUMAR V.S., DELEGATE FROM PALLICHAL HARIJAN HWCS LTD.NO.(T) 685, PALLICHAL, VEDIVACHANCOIL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 501.** - **26 V.SRINIVASAN,** **DELEGATE FROM ERAVATHODI W.C.S.LTD.NO.449, ERAVATHODI, THIRUVILWAMALA P.O., KANIYARCODE, THRISSUR - 680 588.** - **27 B.SREEKUMAR,** **RETURNING OFFICER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H232(HANTEX) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 010.** - **28 ADDL.R.28. VATTAVILA VIJAYAKUMAR ASWATHY, VATTAVILA, KOTTUKKAL P.O.,** WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 4 ## **THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 124.** **29 ADDL.R.29. PERINGAMALA VIJAYAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.SIVANANDAN, RESIDING AT 'HARILAL', PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042. ADDL.R28 AND R29 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10-01-2020 in. I.A NO.2/2020** **R5-26 BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN R27 BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R28 BY ADV. D.SOMASUNDARAM** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 5 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was a candidate who contested the election notified as per Ext.P1 notification dated 13.11.2019 of the State Co-Operative Election Commission, to the managing committee of the 4[th] respondent society (Hantex). In the writ petition it is the case of the petitioner that while, through Ext.P1 notification, it was made clear that the candidates are required to submit the nomination papers together with the resolution of the society nominating them signed by two members of the Managing Committee, and the signature of the Secretary / President of the society certifying the signature of the nominee, many nomination papers, and in particular, those submitted by the respondents 5 to 26, were not certified in the manner prescribed in Ext.P1 notification. It is stated that without considering the above flaw, the returning officer (the 3[rd] respondent) proceeded to accept the nominations submitted by respondents 5 to 26. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 10.12.2019, this Court issued notice by speed post to the respondents 5 to 27 and also directed the learned standing counsel for the respondent society to get instructions in the matter. The matter was thereafter, posted to 17.12.2019. On the said date, an interim order was passed as follows: “Acceptance of the nomination from respondents 5 to 26 will be subject to the outcome of this writ petition. In the event the writ petition is being allowed, respondents 5 to 26 will not get any benefit and, if they are elected, they shall not assume the office without further orders from this Court. The nomination along with the resolution of the aforesaid persons shall be kept WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 6 in a sealed cover by the Returning Officer.” 3. Thereafter, the election to the managing committee of the society was held as scheduled on 19.12.2019, and the results of the election were declared on the same date. In obedience to the directions dated 17.12.2019 of this Court, the nomination papers, along with the resolutions supporting them, pertaining to all the candidates, were kept in sealed cover by the returning officer, and were produced before this Court on the last date of hearing. This Court took note of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the nomination papers submitted by the respondents 5 to 24, which were accepted by the returning officer, did not comply with the specific requirement of Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification, which reads as follows: “ 9. ¥MµíØí/æØXd¿W/æËÁùW Ø¢¸B{áæ¿ Ø¢·ÄßÏßW ¥¢·ØíÅÞÉÈB{ßæÜ dÉÄßÈßÇßµZ ¥Õæø dÉÄßÈßÇßÏÞÏß æÄøæE¿áJ ÍøÃØÎßÄß ÄàøáÎÞÈJßæa ÖøßɵVMí øIí ÍøÃØÎßÄß ¥¢·B{ᢠæØdµGùßçÏÞ, dÉØßÁçaÞ ²MßGí dÉÄßÈßÇßÏáæ¿ ²Mí ØÞfcæM¿áJß Ø¢¸¢/ÌÞCßW ØàW ÉÄߺîí ²øá ɵVMí ÈÞÎÈßVçgÖ ÉdÄßµçÏÞæ¿ÞM¢ ÕøÃÞÇßµÞøßAí ØÎVMßçAIÄÞÃí.” 4. With a view to getting a report as regards the compliance with the aforesaid requirement, this Court sought the assistance of Adv.Sri.Anil Sivaraman as Amicus Curiae to go through the nomination papers submitted by the respondents 5 to 24 to see whether there was compliance with the mandate of Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification extracted above. The report submitted by the Amicus Curiae, after verifying all records, reads as follows WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 7 with regard to the specific queries put to him: “As required by this Hon'ble Court, I have verified the nomination papers submitted by various candidates before the 1" respondent for the election to the Managing Committee of HANTEX. As directed, the verification was basically to see whether these nominations complied with the requirements of clause 9 of Ext P1 election notification. Having gone through the entire file, I submit the following report. Clause 9 of Ext P1 election notification, on translation, reads as follows: "In the case of Apex, Central or Federal Societies the delegates of the member societies shall produce a true copy of the decision of the Board of Directors selecting them as delegates **signed by two Board members and the Secretary or the President certifying the signature of the delegate and affixing the seal of the Society/Bank** along with the nomination papers before the Returning Officer." Sl.no.1: In the case of the 5[th] respondent, this clause seems to have been satisfied, but the word "attested" is not seen. SI.no.2: In the case of the 6[th] respondent, even though the signature of 2 board members and of the President and Secretary are affixed to the Board resolution, and the signature of the delegate is countersigned (but not attested) by the Secretary, the seal is affixed on the top of the resolution and not after the signatures, which is a factor noticed on quite a few other nominations also, even on the undisputed nomination papers. SI.no.13: In the case of the 7[th] respondent, the Board resolution is signed by two Board members along with the President and Secretary and duly sealed in one sheet of paper, and the certification WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 8 of the delegate's signature by the Secretary is seen on a different sheet of paper. Sl.no. 14: Similarly, in the case of the 8[th] respondent also, the Board resolution is signed by two Board members along with the President and Secretary and duly sealed in one sheet of paper, and the certification of the delegate's signature by the Secretary is seen on a different sheet of paper. Sl.no. 15: In the case of the 9[th] respondent, the signature of 2 board members and of the President and Secretary are affixed to the Board resolution, and the signature of the delegate is counter-signed (but not attested) by the Secretary. Sl.no. 19: In the case of the 10[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied, but the word "attested" is not seen used. Sl.no.20: In the case of the 11[th] respondent, the clause is apparently satisfied, but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.26: In the case of the 12[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied, but the word “attested” is not seen used. Sl.no. 28: In the case of the 13[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied though the counter signature does not state attested. Sl.no.29: In the case of the 14[th] respondent, this clause seems to have been satisfied, but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.30: In the case of the 15[th] respondent, this clause seems to have been satisfied but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.31: In the case of the 16[th] respondent, the requirements appear WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 9 to have been satisfied, but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.32: In the case of the 17[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.34: In the case of the 18[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.37: In the case of the 19[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.41: In the case of the 20[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied but the word "attested" is not seen. Sl.no.16: In the case of the 21[st] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied, but the word "attested" is not seen used. **SI.no.27** : In the case of the 22[nd] respondent, the seal of the Society is not seen affixed on the copy of the resolution signed by the Board members, the President and Secretary and the delegate. This nomination is therefore not in terms of the requirements of Clause 9 of Ext P1. Sl.no.35: In the case of the 23[rd] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied, but the word attested is not seen. Sl.no.36: In the case of the 24[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied, but the word "attested" is not seen used. Sl.no.38: In the case of the 25[th] respondent, the delegate is the President of the Society and the copy of the Board resolution produced shows his signature as President and not as the delegate. In other regards, it is in conformity with the requirements of Clause 9 of Ext P1. Here also, the word "attested" is not seen used. WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 10 SI.no.12: In the case of the 24[th] respondent, the requirements appear to have been satisfied, but the word attested is not seen. In fact, the nominations submitted by the petitioner at serial no. 7, by one Bhakthavalsalan at serial no. 8, by G. Vijayan at serial no. 10, and by K. Anilkumar at serial no.22, also do not contain the word "attested", even though, in all other particulars, the same are in conformity with the requirements of Clause 9 of Ext P1. All the other nomination papers, on examination, conform to the requirements of clause 9 of Ext P1 notification, with the added user of the word "attested" by the concerned Secretary while countersigning the signature of the delegate. The files are returned herewith.” 5. A copy of the report of the Amicus Curiae was made available to all parties and thereafter elaborate arguments were advanced before me on the aspect of compliance by respondents 5 to 24, with the requirements of Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification in relation to the nomination papers submitted by them. 6. I have heard the learned senior counsel Sri.George Poonthottam duly assisted by Sri.Anand appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri.P.N.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 24, Sri.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Co-Operative Election Commission and Sri.D.Somasundaram learned counsel for the additional respondents 28 and 29. 7. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the sole issue to be considered WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 11 is whether the nominations submitted on behalf of the respondents 5 to 24, in connection with the election to the managing committee of the 4[th] respondent society, were in compliance, inter alia, with the requirements of Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification. It is not in dispute that the nomination papers submitted by the said respondents were accepted by the returning officer notwithstanding the specific objections raised to the acceptance of the same. In the writ petition too, the case of the petitioner is that the nomination of respondents 5 to 24 were accepted notwithstanding their non-compliance with the directions in Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification. The question, to be considered now is whether, in the light of the report of the Amicus Curiae as extracted above, the nomination submitted by respondents 5 to 24 deserves to be rejected on account of their alleged non-compliance with the requirement of Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification? 8. As already noted, the requirement under Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification is that the delegates of member society, in the case of Apex, Central or Federal society, have to produce a true copy of the decision of the Board of Directors selecting them as delegates, which decision had to be signed by two Board members and further, the signature of the delegate had to be certified either by the Secretary or President, who had also to affix the seal of the society/bank, and submit the same along with the nomination paper before the returning officer. As evident from the report of the Amicus Curiae, the only irregularity noticed in relation to the certification of the signature of the delegate in the nomination submitted by respondents 5 to 24, is that the word 'attested' is not seen in the relevant document, where only the name and signature of the nominee and a counter signature by the Secretary is inscribed. WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 12 It is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that a mere counter signature, below the signature of the nominee, will not amount to an attestation/certification as mandated in Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel would rely on the decision in **Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir Ravuthan and Others [(1908)18 MLJ 219], Dalichand Shivram Marwadi v. Lotu Sakharam Pardhi [(1920) 22 BOMLR 136], Abdul Jabbar Sahib v. Venkata Sastri & Sons and Others** **[1969(1) SCC 573]** and the definition of the word 'attestation' as obtaining in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases - 7[th] edition. It is pointed out the meaning of the word 'attest' is to bear witness to a fact, and where an instrument is required to be attested, the meaning is that the witness shall be present at its execution and shall testify on it that it has been executed by the proper person. It is clarified that to 'attest' an instrument is not merely to subscribe one's name to it, but includes also, essentially the presence, in fact at its execution, of some disinterested persons capable of giving evidence as to what took place. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that in as much as the words 'attest', 'certified' etc. are not used in connection with the certification of the signature of the nominee, and before the Secretary of the society put his signature below that of the nominee, there cannot be said to have been a certification of the signature of the nominee for the purposes of Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification extracted above. 9. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 24 as also Sri.Lakshmi Narayanan, the learned counsel for the State Co-Operative Election Commission, that the word 'certification' used in Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification refers to the act of certification and not necessarily to the usage of certain words while executing WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 13 the act. It is their contention, therefore, that the mere absence of the word 'attest' or 'certified' in the nomination paper, will not take away from the fact that the signature of the nominee was in fact certified or attested by the Secretary, who had put his signature below that of the nominee. 10. On a consideration of rival submissions, I am of the view that in the backdrop of the express wording in Clause 9 of Ext.P1 notification, pursuant to which the nomination papers were submitted by respondents 5 to 24, the second signature of the Secretary, below the signature of the nominee, has to be seen as necessitated only on account of the mandate in Clause 9, that required the Secretary to put his signature towards certifying the signature of the nominee. Viewed from that angle, I am of the view that mere absence of the word 'attest' or 'certifying' in the document submitted along with the nomination of the respondents 5 to 24, cannot be said to be fatal to the nominations so submitted by them. As a consequence, the acceptance of the nominations of the said respondents, by the returning officer, also cannot be faulted. I, therefore, find that the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted, especially when viewed against the backdrop of the requirements stipulated in Ext.P1 notification, and the demonstrated compliance with the said requirements in the instant case. 11. Before parting with this case, however, I feel that it would be desirable for the State Co-Operative Election Commission at first instance, and eventually the legislature itself, to incorporate more clear guidelines with regard to the manner of submission of nominations by delegate candidates aspiring to contest in elections conducted in accordance with the provisions of WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 14 the Kerala State Co-Operative Act and Rules. The facts in the instant case highlight the confusion/ambiguity that can prevail during the conduct of elections, on account of the lack of clear guidelines as regards the format and the manner in which nominations have to be submitted by the candidates concerned. The necessity of a format giving details of the legends/endorsements/certification that have to be carried on a nomination cannot be understated and in my view, would, to a large extent, alleviate the problems faced during the conduct of elections in the Co-Operative sector, and go a long way to reduce wasteful expenditure that would inevitably follow the cancellation of an election on account of erroneous acceptance of nomination papers by the returning officers concerned. It is hoped, therefore, that the State Co-Operative Election Commission, as also the State Legislature, would bestow serious consideration to this aspect so as to avoid such instances in the future. 12. Before parting with the case, this Court records its appreciation for the yeomen service rendered by learned Amicus Curiae, Sri.Anil Sivaraman in going through the files produced before this Court and submitting a report with regard to the factual aspects involved in this writ petition. The writ petition is disposed as above. Sd/- **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** sd WP(C).No.33678 OF 2019(H) 15 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 13/11/2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 06/12/2019 SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO.3. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF VALID NOMINATIONS PUBLISHED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 1074/2019/ID DATED 26.10.2019 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 19.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT NO.27 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.1.2020 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.4 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.1.2020 ISSUED TO RESPONDENT NO.4 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R18 A A TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST OF HANTEX EXHIBIT R18 B A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 02.12.2019 TAKEN BY THE KUTHUPARAMBA WEAVERS CO-OP.P & S SOCIETY LTD. TO NOMINATE SRI.K.MANOHARAN AS DELEGATED TO THE ELECTION TO HANTEX ALONG WITH THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER. EXHIBIT R18 BC A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 29.11.2019 TAKEN BY THE KANNAPURAM WEAVERS INDUSTRIAL (W.S.) CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NOMINATING SRI. V.K.VIJAYAN AS A DELEGATE TO THE ELECTION TO HANTEX ALONG WITH THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER. EXHIBIT R18 D A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF THE RESULTS BY THE RETURNING OFFICER. EXHIBIT R28 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 19/12/2019 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RETURNING OFFICER EXHIBIT R28 B TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 15/2/2020 FILED BY THE 29TH RESPONDENT/2ND PETITIONER HEREIN.**