ANIL Vs. STATE CO-OP ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was the former President of Marayamuttom Service Cooperative Bank Limited. An order of surcharge was issued under Sec. 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the petitioner in respect of some issues relating to the Marayamuttom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. It is not necessary to delve into the circumstances which led to an order of surcharge being issued, for the purposes of this case. The order imposing surcharge on the petitioner was the subject matter of an appeal before the Government. The Government did not interfere with the order. The petitioner and ten other members of the Managing Committee of Marayamuttom Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed W.P(C) No. 19204/2022 before this court and this court through Ext.P1 order dtd. 14/6/2022 in that writ petition has stayed recovery proceedings pursuant to the order of surcharge. It is to be noted that though the petitioner sought a stay of implementation of the impugned orders, this court through the interim order dtd. 14/6/2022 stayed only the recovery proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this court apprehending that the order of surcharge issued in respect of matters regarding the Marayamuttom Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., shall be treated as a disqualification for the purpose of contesting in the election to the Board of Directors/Managing Committee of the Neyyattinkara Primary Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd., by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 44 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short).

(3.) Sri. B.S. Swathi Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the provisions of Rule 44 of the Rules clearly indicate that the disqualification contemplated under Rule 44(1)(l) will be attracted only in respect of an election to the Board of Directors/Managing Committee of the society in respect of which the order of surcharge has been issued. It is his contention that Rule 44(1) uses the words 'the' committee and 'the' society clearly indicating that the order of surcharge cannot lead to disqualification for contesting the elections to another co-operative society. It is also contended that sub-rule (3) of Rule 44 indicates that there must be an order of disqualification and without such order, the petitioner cannot be held to have attracted any disqualification even if an order of surcharge has been issued against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Rule 44 have to be strictly construed and in a manner that this Court would interpret a penal provision. It is submitted that the right of the petitioner to contest in the election is a valuable constitutional right which cannot be curtailed in a casual manner.