P.K. KURIAN PAZHAYADATH, AGED 71 YEARS S/O. OUSEPH, KURUVILLA, ANJIRI.P.O. THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a candidate for election to the Managing Committee of the fifth respondent for the seat reserved for depositors having an amount in excess of Rs. 10,000/ - as deposit. He has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P5 proceedings of the fourth respondent by which his nomination has been rejected. The reason for rejecting his nomination paper is that the same is not supported by a declaration to be submitted by the seconder. It is the contention of the petitioner that the seconder had inadvertently omitted to sign the declaration part of the nomination paper though the signature appears on the first page. According to the petitioner, the defect is a curable one but, the Returning Officer has rejected his nomination. Adv.Sri.D.Somasundaram, the Spl.Govt.Pleader has made available, for perusal, the original nomination paper submitted by the petitioner. On a perusal of the same, it is noticed that the seconder has not made the declaration that is stipulated, in support of the nomination of the petitioner. He has also not affixed his signature at the appropriate place. According to the learned counsel who appears for the petitioner, the said declaration is not of any consequence. It is only a defect that is curable in nature and therefore the Returning Officer ought to have accepted the nomination paper after permitting the petitioner to cure the defects noted. Advocate Sri.D. Somasundaram, the Spl.Govt.Pleader on the other hand refers to Section 35A of the Co -operative Societies Rules ('the Rules' for short) to contend that the declaration is mandatory and a defect that cannot be cured.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Spl.Govt.Pleader. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.