K.M.AMBROSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the President of the Chettikkad Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. No.851, has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8 notification, by which an election to the 5th respondent bank has been notified. The petitioner has also challenged Ext.P10 voters' list alleging that it contains ineligible voters.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first limb of his challenge is that, in Ext.P8 notification what is provided is that there shall be one representative each of the General Primary Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society of each Taluk. Though it is not disputed that there are only 7 Taluks in Ernakulam district, it is contended that the names of the Taluks should have been specifically mentioned in the notification in the manner it used to be mentioned in the previous notifications and in the case of other District Co-operative Banks. A similar election notification in respect of the Kozhikode District Co- operative Bank is handed over to me to show that in the said notification, where there are 9 seats, it has been specifically mentioned that from each Taluk namely, Kozhikode, Vadakara and Koyilandy, there would be 3 representatives each. It is further contended that though bye-law 26 of the Bye-laws of the 5th respondent bank provides for the formation of a general constituency of all Primary Agricultural Credit Societies including Farmers' Service Co-operative Banks and Urban Co- operative Banks having RBI licence w.e.f 11.12.2007, no provision for such a constituency has been provided in Ext.P8. It is therefore contended that Ext.P8 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties at length. A plain reading of Ext.P8 notification shows that there are only 7 candidates from 7 Taluks that are available in Ernakulam District. Therefore, it is clear that the wards have been delimited on the basis of the Taluks available in the district. It cannot be said that by designating each Taluk as a separate constituency, any person is prejudiced or conferred with an unmerited advantage. It is with the object of ensuring that the Managing Committee in power does not effect delimitation of wards with the object of manipulating the electorate and securing a fresh mandate for themselves, that such power has been conferred on the General Body alone. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Bye-laws of the 5th respondent has been amended as evident from Ext.P7. The amended bye-law 26.i reads as follows: