ABUBAKER Vs. KUNHAVARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was not a party in the original petition before the learned single Judge, but being aggrieved by the judgment the appellant has been granted leave to file this appeal.

(2.) The petitioners in the original petition were candidates for election to the managing committee of the Nediyiruppu Service Coop. Bank Ltd. The appellant herein was also a candidate. The returning officer for such election, the 1st respondent in the original petition was taking steps to conduct the election on 26-9-81. On that day polling commenced at 8 A M. in four booths. While the polling was being conducted at about 9 A. M. some persons obstructed the polling and unauthorisedly entered the booths. Since the polling was interrupted by such conduct the 1st respondent returning officer stopped the polling in exercise of the powers conferred under R.35(3)(p) of the Coop. Societies Rules, which reads:

(3.) Ext. P1 is the order passed by him recording reasons. Therein he has mentioned that he was exercising the power conferred under R.35(3)(p) in view of the circumstances which he has detailed in his order. The complaint of the petitioners in the original petition was that since passing Ext. P1 order no steps were being taken by the returning officer to complete the election. In the meanwhile the coop. society has come under the management of the administrator, the 3rd respondent in the original petition. In these circumstances the petitioners prayed that the court be pleased to issue an interim direction to the returning officer to conduct the election from the stage at which it was stopped on 26-9-81. It is that which has been dealt with by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge directed the returning officer to proceed with the polling on a day to be fixed by him within one month. The learned single Judge also directed that he need not start afresh the whole election which means that those who have already cast the votes need not recast the votes. Thereupon the appellant has come up in appeal raising two points, these being: (1) Under the Kerala Coop. Societies Rules the returning officer has only a power to conduct the elections, this does not include power to fix a date for election and that power is only with the managing committee which means that it is with the administrator now. The learned single Judge ought not to have directed the 1st respondent to fix the date of the election; (2) The direction of the learned single judge that votes already cast need not be recast and such voters need not be allowed to vote again is not proper, for the process must start all over again.