STATE OF KERALA Vs. THILOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal is preferred by the State of Kerala and two others against the directions issued by the learned single Judge in the conduct of elections to the Shertallai South Coir Vyavasaya Cooperative Society Limited. By Judgment dated 17-3-1992, the learned Judge observed that the interests of justice will be subserved by a direction to hold elections to the above said Society on or before 31-5-1992. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the Junior Cooperative Inspector (Administrator) to pass a resolution for holding the elections within a period of ten days from that date and take steps forthwith to communicate it to the Project Officer (Coir), Alappuzha. It was further directed that the said Project Officer shall thereupon appoint the requisite returning officer for. the purpose of holding the election and the election is directed to be held on or before 31-5-1992. It is this order that is questioned in this Writ Appeal.

(2.) It may be noticed that the Governor of Kerala, has issued an Ordinance which came into force on 7-2-1992 by which the term of the Society was reduced and a new scheme was brought forward for appointment of a new committee or an administrator as provided in S.28(1A) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. The Society here claims to have passed a resolution on 6-2-1992 which, according to it, was despatched to the concerned authority by registered post only on 13-2-1992. The above said resolution required that the election to the committee of the Society be conducted on 25-4-1992. It so happened that an administrator was appointed as per the provisions of the Ordinance on 14-2-1992 and there is dispute as to the date on which he has taken charge, but going by the case of the Society, he took charge on 27-2-1992. The Writ Petition was filed on the basis of the above said resolution of 6-2-1992 and various directions were sought for. The learned Judge, instead of going into the merits, himself fixed the date for the election, namely, that the election should take place on or before 31-5-1992.

(3.) Appellants preferred this appeal and obtained an order of stay from a 'Division Bench of this Court on 19-5-1992 and the result was that the election did not take place on 31-5-1992 as directed by the learned Judge. It is therefore, necessary to decide as to what directions have to be given for the conduct of the election in the light of the provisions of the subsequent amending Act which replaced the ordinance.