VISWANATHAN Vs. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Wayanad District Cooperative Bank Ltd., respondent No. 2 herein, is an apex society in terms of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. The petitioner in the Original Petition is a delegate of the Poothady Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., a member of the apex society. The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner seeking the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Returning Officer appointed for the conduct of the election to the Managing Committee of the Apex Society, to delete the names of respondents 3 to 6 in the Original Petition from the final voters' list published for election to the Managing Committee of the apex society. According to the petitioner, these respondents were ineligible to vote at the election to be held to the Managing Committee of the apex society. Respondent No. 6, who was number 31 in the voters' lists, was not entitled to vote because it was given affiliation to the apex society by an Administrator and since the Administrator had no power to induct, enroll or affiliate a member, respondent No. 6 was disentitled to participate in the election process. The objection against respondents 3 to 5 was that those respondents were non functional, being under Administrators for considerable time and were defunct in effect and hence they were also not entitled to vote at the election. The further plea was that a delegate sent up by an Administrator of a member society, had no right to vote at the election of the Managing Committee to the apex society. According to the petitioner, though he had filed a detailed objection, Ext. P2, to the draft voters' list, the objection has been ignored by the Returning Officer, who had simply finalised the voters' list by approving the draft voters' list earlier published. It was in that situation, that the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court with the Original Petition. There was also a prayer subsequently added for a declaration that the inclusion of the names of respondents 3 to 6 in the voters' list was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the Kerala Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance 12 of 1997.

(2.) The Returning Officer filed a counter affidavit. Therein he stated that respondent No. 3 had been admitted as a member of the Kozhikode District Cooperative Bank and on the formation of the Wayanad District Cooperative Bank, this member was transferred to the second respondent bank with effect from 1.10.1982 and respondent No. 3 society was still continuing as a 'A' class member of the Bank with a share qualification of Rs. 200/- as on the date of the counter affidavit. The allegation that respondent No. 3 was under the control of the Administrator for several years was not correct. The Administrator was appointed only on 14.1.1996 for a period of one year and the same was extended for another one year on 14.1.1997. As regards respondent No. 4, it was contended that the Administrator was appointed on 21.2.1997 and the Administrator took charge only in March 1997. The Administrator was appointed as per the report submitted by the Unit Inspector, who conducted an enquiry under S.65 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. Respondent No. 5 was also admitted as a member of the Kozhikode District Cooperative Bank and transferred to the second respondent Bank with effect from 1.10.1982. Election was conducted in respondent No. 5 Bank on 30.9.1992. But as per award of the Arbitrator under the Act, the election was declared invalid. An Administrator was thereupon appointed with effect from 8.1.1997. It is not necessary to discuss in detail the case regarding respondent No. 6 since the question involved as regards the eligibility of that respondent is now covered by a decision of the Supreme Court.

(3.) Respondent No. 2, the apex society, filed a counter affidavit through its General Manager. The stand adopted in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 5 was reiterated in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2. It was further stated that Ext. P2 objection filed by the petitioner to the draft voters' list appears to have been disposed of by the Returning Officer and the petitioner has efficacious alternative remedy.