PADMAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Reservation is provided in the election to the committee of a Cooperative Society, one seat for SC / ST and one for women. But merely because the constituency is not specified in the nomination paper, can the same be rejected

(2.) A statement has been filed by the Returning Officer on 3.7.2002. In the said statement dated 25.6.2002 it is submitted that the preliminary voters list was published on the notice board of the Society on 8.4.2002 and a final list on 17.4.2002. The Returning Officer submitted at Para.3 in the statement that there were complaints of non receipt of voters list and also issuance of identity cards and acceptance of loan amount. However, the stand taken by the Returning Officer is that is not for the Returning Officer to take any step in the matter. As far as the nominations are concerned, it is submitted that 25 nominations were received, but 17 of them were rejected for various reasons. One main reason is that the contesting constituency is not specified in the nomination and yet another reason is that either the name of the candidate or the name of the proposer / seconder is not seen in the list. Nomination paper is common for all the three categories, namely, general, reserved and women. Eight nominations were rejected for the only reason of not specifying the constituency. I am afraid, the nomination cannot be rejected for that ground alone. If a candidate has not specified his candidature in respect of a reserved constituency, it has to be taken that the candidature is for a general constituency since that alone is the inference possible. It may be seen that the nomination is valid for all other reasons, the only infirmity being the non specification by the candidate regarding the constituency whether it was general or reserved. To be a candidate for a reserved constituency is a special privilege and if no such special privilege is claimed by a candidate, his nomination cannot be rejected on the ground that there is no specification in the nomination as to the constituency, if it is otherwise valid. The nomination has to be accepted and the candidate has to be allowed to be contested in the general category. Therefore, the rejection of the nomination papers of the candidates for the only reason of not specifying the constituency as to whether it is general or reserved is not proper. In the absence of any specification regarding a reserved constituency, a nomination which is otherwise valid in all other aspects has only to be treated as candidature for a general seat.

(3.) As far as the voters list is concerned, it is now admitted by the Returning Officer in the affidavit dated 31.7.2002 that the list furnished by the administrative committee contained the names of those members enrolled after 9.11.2001 by the administrative committee. Since the Administrator or the administrative committee lacks power to enrol members in a Cooperative Society so as to alter its composition, the members enrolled by the administrative committee also cannot be permitted to exercise their franchise. It is admitted in the affidavit that Ext. R3(a) voters list was published at Champakkara Homoeo Dispensary dispensing since the office functions there since February, 2002. But the seal affixed in Ext. R3(a) shows the office to be at Vyttila. Thus admittedly the voters list was not published in the office of the Society at Vyttila. The photographs produced by the petitioners also show the office at Vyttila. Therefore, the very basis of the election being improper, a corrective step has to be taken from the stage of publication of the preliminary voters list at the office of the Society.