K.S. Chacko and others v. Returning Officer, Karikode KSHEEROLPADANA SAHARANA SANGHAM No. K 77 (D) APOOS, and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- K. M. Joseph
- Judgment Date
- 2007-09-13
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- K.S. Chacko
- K.K. Ravi
- K.P. Ousepachan
- P.P. Karthyani Amma
- Pappachan
- Sajeevan
- Boban George
- Saramma
- Chinnamma Sunny
- Roy
- Sajimon
- Philip
- Rajamma
- A.U. Varghese
- T.S. Krishnankutty
- A.G. Omana
- E.T. John
- Bhaskaran
- P.C. Alias
- Lusy Mathew
- Sudarsan
- P.A. Thomas
- Sosamma
- V.R. Lakshmanan
- T.V. Sathyan
- Sobana Mohanan
- Maniyan K.K.
- K.K. Krishnan
- Mary KuriaKose
- K.V. Pappachan
- O.N. Manoharan
- N.K. George
- K.R. Dinamani
- T.A. Chacko
- Mohanan
- Babu.P.A.
- K.C. Gopalan
Respondents
- The Returning Officer, Karikode KSHEEROLPADANA SAHARANA SANGHAM No. K 77 (D) APOOS (Diary Extension Officer, Dairy Development Office, Kadathuruthy)
- The Director, Diary Development Department, Trivandrum
- Karikode KSHEEROLPADANA SAHARANA SANGHAM No.K 77 (D) APOOS, represented by the Secretary
- The President, Administrative Committee, Karikode KSHEEROLPADANA SAHARANA SANGHAM No.K 77 (D) APOOS, Kottayam
- K.O.Joseph, Membership No. 645, Karikode KSHEEROLPADANA SAHARANA SANGHAM No.K 77 (D) APOOS, residing at Keerimattathil House, Karikode P.O., Kottayam.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri. Thampan Thomas
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Jose Joseph Arayakunnel
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition filed in the Kerala High Court by 37 members of the Karikode KSHEEROLPADANA SAHARANA SANGHAM (K.K.77/D) APOOS seeks to quash Ext.P5 and to compel inclusion of petitioners in the final voters list, with a direction to conduct elections including their names. The petitioners assert that they are enrolled as members by the Administrative Committee under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, a fact not disputed by the respondents’ counsel. The respondents’ advocate recognizes their enrollment but suggests that the petitioners’ rights to vote must be tested against the statutory framework governing membership and enrollment. The court references Karunakaran Pillai v. Venugopala Pillai (2005 (3) KLT 348), noting that even amended provisions do not empower the Administrator to enroll new Members under Sections 33(2) or 16(2) of the Act. On this basis, the court holds that the petitioners cannot claim a right to exercise membership rights. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. The decision underscores the limitation on post-enrollment power to admit members by an administrator, reinforcing the view that membership rights must arise from defined statutory authority and proper amendment, not mere enrollment by an administrative committee.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that Ext.P5 should be quashed and their names included in the final voters list, with a direction to conduct elections including their names. They rely on their enrollment by the Administrative Committee under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and assert their right to participate as Members in the electoral process. They also seek to test the scope of membership under the Act against the administrative action that purportedly affects their status as voters.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents, through the Government Pleader, submit that the petitioners are enrolled by the Administrative Committee under Section 32 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, a fact not disputed by the petitioners’ counsel. The argument centers on whether amended provisions permit the Administrator to enroll new Members or alter member rights under Sections 33(2) and 16(2) of the Act. The respondents contend that enrollment of new members by the Administrator is not authorized by law, consistent with the cited precedent and statutory framework.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Karunakaran Pillai v. Venugopala Pillai | 2005 (3) KLT 348 | Positive | Cited as controlling authority for the proposition that amended provisions do not empower the Administrator to enroll new Members under Sections 33(2) or 16(2) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. |
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 K.S. Chacko and others v. Returning Officer, Karikode KSHEEROLPADANA SAHARANA SANGHAM No. K 77 (D) APOOS, and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.