GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Kerala State Cooperative Union (referred to hereinafter as the State Union is one established under S.89 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, (the Act). It consists of a general body and a managing committee. The latter consists inter alia of "two members elected from among themselves in such manner as may be prescribed by the members of the circle cooperative unions, elected under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of S.88". S.88 deals with the constitution of circle cooperative unions (circle union for short). Under sub clause (d) of clause (1) thereof, two of the members of a circle union are elected by the employees of Cooperative societies within the Circle. These employee members of the various circle unions have to elect two from among themselves as members of the managing committee of the State Union, as mentioned earlier.

(2.) An election was held for the purpose on February 6,1988 at which four candidates, namely the two petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 contested. The petitioners are employees of the Meenachil Rubber Marketing and Processing Cooperative Society Ltd. and Mattanur Cooperative Rural Bank Ltd. and had been elected as members of the Meenachil Circle Cooperative Union and Koothuparamba Circle Cooperative Union respectively, by the employees of cooperative societies within these circles. When the votes were counted after the polling, it was found that all the four candidates had secured 52 votes each. The procedure to be followed in such contingency of equality of votes is prescribed in R.159 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (the Rules), which provides that "in the case of equal division of votes, the result shall be decided by lots to be drawn by the Returning Officer". Accordingly, the Reluming Officer decided to draw lots to determine the two successful candidates. The four contesting candidates also gave their consent in writing duly signed to the drawing of lots. The lots were made out in four pieces of paper of equal size with the name of each candidate written thereon, which were shown to all the candidates. The lots were then drawn after putting them in a container and tilting well. However, and instead of drawing of lots himself, the Returning Officer, with the in tent of being very fair to the contesting candidates, called the watchman of the Cooperative Training Centre, where the election was held, to take the lots. This was also done with the consent of all the four candidates. When the first lot was taken, it contained the name of the first petitioner. The second lot contained the name of the second petitioner. The two petitioners were therefore, declared elected by the Returning Officer. The other two candidates namely respondents 5 and 6 accepted this declaration and did not challenge it at any time. They had, as a matter of fact, assented to, and acquiesced in, the entire procedure adopted by the Returning Officer for the drawing of lots. However, the fourth respondent, who was one of the voters at the election, filed a petition Ext. P1 under R.154 of the Rules on February 9,1988 for setting aside the election with the plea that it stood vitiated for the reason that the lots were drawn not by the Returning Officer himself, but by the watchman. This, he said, was contrary to R.159 and therefore, the election was rendered void.

(3.) R.154 of the Rules provides that any dispute relating to any manner in the constitution of the managing committee of the State Cooperative Union shall be referred to Government, and that the decision of Government thereon shall be final. The procedure prescribed for the disposal of a reference under S.69 of the Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to the disposal of this dispute, except that the authority to hear and dispose of the dispute shall be the Government Petitions to revise any order passed at any stage of the constitution of the managing committee shall be filed within thirty days from the date of issue of the order sought to be revised,