R.SIVAKUMAR Vs. CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a member of the 5th respondent bank, has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE 5th respondent is a Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules thereunder (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act and Rules' for short). As per Ext.P1 Notification, an election is scheduled to be conducted to the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent bank on 15.06.2013. Ext.P1 contains the schedule of election. As per Ext.P1, a draft voters' list was published on 09.05.2013 and the last date for submission of objections to the draft voters' list was 16.05.2013. The petitioner submitted his objections, Ext.P2 dated 16.05.2013, questioning the membership of 799 persons who have been admitted to the membership of the society. According to the petitioner, the said persons are ineligible to be admitted to the membership of the society, being persons not residing within the area of operation of the society. The 2nd respondent has, by Ext.P3, rejected the objections for the reason that sufficient time was not available to conduct an enquiry into the eligibility of each and every member against whom objections have been raised, since the proceedings had to be completed strictly in accordance with Ext.P1 schedule of election. Therefore, the petitioner's objections have not been considered, he complains.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader Sri D.Somasundaram takes serious objection to the contentions raised by the petitioner. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent producing Exts.R2(a) to R2(c) documents. Ext.R2(a) is the written deposition of the Secretary of the 5th respondent, on the basis of which, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P3. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the objections raised by the petitioner are not specific. Unless specific and pointed objections are raised against each individual member, the 2nd respondent need not enquire into the same. Reliance is also placed on Ext.P4 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, wherein it has been held that the Returning Officer is not expected to make a roving enquiry into the objections and that unless specific objections are raised, they need not be considered. It is pointed out that Ext.P5 that is pending before the 1st respondent would have to be considered and necessary orders passed, before any person could be removed from the membership of the society. Therefore, it is contended that this is not a fit case in which the reliefs sought for by the petitioner can be granted. Reliance is also placed on an unreported judgment dated 27.07.2012 in W.P(c) No.15024 of 2012 wherein I had considered a similar prayer on identical grounds.