RAJESH KUMAR C. Vs. PRASAD M. CHERIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 9, the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 10 and 11 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 12th respondent Society.

(2.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge refusing to exercise jurisdiction in the matter of acceptance of nominations of the contesting party respondents herein for contesting the elections to the Managing Committee of the 12th respondent society. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that out of the 30 nominations submitted, the Returning Officer published a list of 28 candidates, whose names were liable to be accepted. As evidenced by Exhibit R12(n) communication dtd. 16/10/2023, the Secretary of the Society was required to forward the details of disqualification, if any, under the Cooperative Societies Act, Rules or the bylaws of the Society in the case of the persons named in the list. It is submitted that the 12th respondent forwarded Exhibit P4 communication dtd. 17/10/2023 pointing out the details. Exhibit P4 would show that respondents 1 to 9 were disqualified for contesting the election. However, in spite of Exhibit P4 communication and Exhibit P6 objections submitted by the appellants, the nominations of respondents 1 to 9 were accepted.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that in view of the fact that no further enquiry was required at the hands of the Returning Officer and since it was apparent that respondents 1 to 9 in the writ petition clearly suffered disqualification for contesting the election, the act of the Returning Officer in having accepted the nominations was clearly illegal. It is, therefore, contended that the said question ought to have been considered by the learned single Judge and the judgment, inasmuch as it relegates the appellants to the appellate remedy under Sec. 69 of the Act, which is far from efficacious, is completely unjustified.