High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-07-26The writ petition was disposed of with directio...

R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.19121 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-07-26
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed with directions: elections to proceed as notified; Returning Officer to ensure no double voting by requiring statutory identity cards and additional identity proof per Rule 35A(6)(n)(ix); regarding missing Father’s/Husband’s names, votes of such members may be cast in a separate box and counted separately without delaying the final tally; petitioner is given liberty to pursue all legal remedies after the elections.
Final Disposition: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the election to proceed, with safeguards to address duplication and missing mandatory information, and with leave to the petitioner to pursue post-election remedies.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA
THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
THE JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM-691 013
THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3856, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. (THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506).
THE RETURNING OFFICER, NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3856, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. (THE NEDUVATHOOR UNIT INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM691 506).
THE NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3856, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.
THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI.B.MOHANLAL

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
• SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a member of the 6th respondent Neduvathoor Service Co-operative Bank, challenged Ext. P2 notification issued by the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission for elections to the bank’s managing committee. He submitted objections (Exts. P3–P5) alleging that the polling date of 31.07.2019 is a public holiday (Karkidavavu) when Hindus attend temple rites, which would disenfranchise Hindu members. He also contended that the Draft Voters List was defective—with missing mandatory particulars such as Father’s/Husband’s name—and that there were duplications of names in the list. After additional representations (Ext. P9 on 08.07.2019), he sought deferral of the elections. The respondents’ counsel argued that the date was fixed by the society’s resolution and that the Commission should not intervene in a process already notified; they asserted that any objections could be raised through statutory remedies after the election. The Court found prima facie merit in issues of duplication and missing mandatory information but declined to adjourn the elections. It directed the Returning Officer to prevent double voting by ensuring identity verification under Rule 35A(6)(n)(ix) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and proposed that votes of members whose Father’s/Husband’s name is missing be cast in a separate box and counted separately, without delaying results. The petition was disposed with liberty to pursue post-election remedies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Co-operative Societies ActKerala Co-operative Societies RulesRule 35A(6)(n)(ix) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the polling date fixed by Ext. P2 and the voter list process violate fundamental fairness for Hindus who will be unable to vote on a public holiday. He alleges multiplicity and inaccuracy in the Draft Voter List (missing Father’s/Husband’s names, duplication of names) and seeks deferral or recasting of the voters list. He argues that the Election Commission must ensure a fair process and that any irregularities should be resolved before voting.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the polling date was fixed by the managing committee’s resolution and that the Commission should not intervene in a process once notified. They contend that duplication issues can be addressed by the Returning Officer through due diligence and verification, and that missing mandatory particulars are not determinative of the election, as other details are available. They rely on the principle that intervention in electoral processes post-notification is improper, citing a Supreme Court precedent (Shri Saint Sadguru v. State of Maharashtra) to support non-interference.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shri Saint Sadguru v. State of Maharashtra	2008 (8) SCC 509	Positive	The Court relied on this Supreme Court precedent to justify non-interference in the election process once it has been notified.

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 R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KARIKKATHIL, NEDUVATHOOR, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO**| ||**GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**|**THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695**| ||**001.**| |**3**|**THE JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL) OF CO-OPERARATIVE**| ||**SOCIETEIS,**| ||**COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOLLAM-691**| ||**013.**| |**4**|**THE ELECTORAL OFFICER,**| ||**NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED**| ||**NO.3856, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA,**| ||**KOLLAM-691 506. (THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR**| ||**(GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,**| ||**KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506).**| ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -2- **5 THE RETURNING OFFICER, NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3856, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506. (THE NEDUVATHOOR UNIT INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM691 506).** - **6 THE NEDUVATHOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3856, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.** - **7 THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -3- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner claims to be a member of the 6[th] respondent Society, the elections to the Managing Committee of which is notified by the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission through Ext.P2 notification. 2. According to the petitioner, as soon as Ext.P2 notification was published he preferred Ext.P3 objections before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies Kottarakkara, alleging that the voting date shown in the notification will deny voting rights to the Hindu members because, the said date, namely 31.07.2019, is a public holiday on account of Karkidakavavu and all Hindus will have to attend spiritual rites on that day in far away temples, thus being unable to cast ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -4- their votes. He says that inspite of Ext.P3, no action was taken and thereafter, that on 03.07.2019 and 04.07.2019, he preferred Exts.P4 and P5 objections against the Draft Voters List, wherein he has additionally alleged that large number of members have been unauthorisedly removed from the list and also that the details of the included members, which are mandatory ones, like the Father's/Husband's name, are missing. 3. He says that still when, no action was taken by the Election Commission, he preferred Ext.P9 representation to them on 08.07.2019 wherein, all these allegations have been reiterated, adding that the Voters List has duplication of the names of the members at various places. The petitioner alleges that inspite of all this, the Election Commission has obdurately refused to consider his objections or ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -5- to recast the Voters List and consequently prays that the elections, notified through Ext.P2, be directed to be deferred. 4. In response, Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Election Commission, submits that as regards the allegation of duplication of names in the Voters List is concerned, that will affect the process because, by employing due diligence the Returning Officer will ensure that no one is able to cast their votes more than once. 5. On the issue of the voting date being fixed on 31.07.2019, he says that except the petitioner, no one has raised such a complaint, even though there are large number of members in the Society. He submits that the Commission cannot, therefore, take any action, particularly because this date was fixed as per the resolution of the Managing Committee of the ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -6- Society themselves. 6. Finally, on the issue of incomplete particulars of the members in the voters list is concerned, Sri.Lakshmi Narayan concedes that the Father's/Husband's name is missing in the case of some members; but that this is not very relevant because other details like the House name/area/residence have been clearly shown there. He therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed especially because the elections are to take place on 31.07.2019. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Bimal K. Nath and Sri. K.V Anil Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, endorse the above submissions of Sri.R Lakshmi Narayan, adding that going by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Shri Saint Sadguru v. State of Maharashtra [2008 (8) SCC 509]**_ it will not be prudent or proper for this Court to intervene ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -7- in the election processes, once it has been notified. They say that the petitioner can always raise all his objections in a Statutory procedure after the election is over. 8. I have considered the submissions of Sri. Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner very carefully and have tested it against the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. As regards the date of polling is concerned, I cannot find favour with the petitioner because, as rightly pointed out by Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayan, he only appears to have raised such an objection and more than 4000 members of the Society have not done so, indicating that he alone feels aggrieved by this. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that no Hindus will vote on that date appears to be rather far-fetched. ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -8- 10. However, as regards the allegations of the duplication of names and the mandatory details of the members being absent from the Voters List are concerned, I find _Prima facie_ force in the submissions of Sri.Mohanlal. That said, I do not deem it appropriate or necessary to adjourn the elections for these reasons because, as regards the duplication is concerned, as pointed out by Sri. R Lakshmi Narayan, it is the obligation of the Returning Officer to make sure that such duplicated members do not obtain opportunity to cast their vote twice and for this purpose, it will be sufficient that the said Officer employs due diligence ensuring that ballot papers are issued only to those members who produce the statutory identity cards as also the other necessary identity proof as provided under Rule 35A(6)(n) (ix) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -9- 11. However, as regards the allegation of the names of Father's/Husband's being absent in the case of the some members in the Voters List is concerned, there is no doubt that this appears to be contrary to the strict mandate of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules since, that information is certainly one that is specified as being one of the requisite information. I am, consequently, of the view that, so as to protect the interests of the petitioner in any procedure that he may intend to take in future, that the votes of all those members, whose mandatory information is missing from the Voters List, be permitted to cast only in a separate box and that these votes be counted separately; but clarifying that this will not stop the Returning Officer from declaring the results after elections are over. In the afore circumstances, I order this ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -10- writ petition and leave full liberty to the petitioner to invoke all alternative remedies as per law, after the elections are over. **SD/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** SJ ## **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** -11- ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.E(1)2975/2019/SCEC DATED 12.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT ELECTION COMMISSION.** **EXHIBIT P3** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ENDORSEMENT.** **EXHIBIT P4** - **THE TUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ENDORSEMENT.** **EXHIBIT P5** - **THE TUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT .** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7** - **THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL VOTERS LIST OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT BANK PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5.** **EXHIBIT P8** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ENDORSEMENT.** **WP(C).No.19121 of 2019** **EXHIBIT P9** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ENDORSEMENT.**