K N GANGADHARAN NAIR Vs. GEORGE O THETTAYIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 3 to 8 in O. P. 8768 of 1993 are the appellants. They were members of the Board of Directors of second respondent, the Vengoor Service Cooperative Society Ltd. No, 2793, Vengoor, for two consecutive terms. They filed nominations for contesting the election that was to be held on 18-7-1993, which was the third term. Their entitlement for contesting the election on the ground of the bar created by bye law No. 32 of the bye laws of the Society was questioned before the Returning Officer. Returning Officer rejected those objections and accepted nomination filed by respondents 3 to 8 in the Original Petition who are the appellants herein. Writ petitioner challenged this action of the Returning Officer in O. P. 8768 of 1993. By judgment dated 16-7-1993, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition declared and that respondents 3 to 8 (appellants herein), except 7th respondent, are not entitled to contest the election in view of the bar created by bye law 32. Appellants challenge this decision rendered by the learned Single Judge

(2.) By virtue of the decision of the learned Single Judge, appellants could not contest the election which was held on 18-7-1993. In that election, among other candidates who contested, additional respondents 5 to 12, impleaded in this appeal, were declared elected. They were impleaded in this appeal by order dated 20-7-1993 in C. M. P. 2313 of 1993. By order on C. M. P. 2325 of 1993 dated 20-7-1993, we restrained persons who were elected to the Managing Committee of the Vengoor Service Cooperative Society Ltd. No. 2793 from assuming office of the Managing Committee until further orders. The Secretary of the society was also restrained from allowing the newly elected office - bearers from assuming office. By virtue of this order, the Society is now managed by an Administrator.

(3.) The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in ordering the rejection of the nominations filed by the appellants on account of the prohibition contained in bye law 32 of the bye laws of the Society. The said provision is to the effect that a member of the Society for two consecutive terms is not entitled to contest election unless he obtains special sanction from the Deputy Registrar to stand for election. It is the common case that appellants were members of the Committee of the Society for two consecutive terms. So, if bye law 32 is to be given its full effect, they should have obtained previous sanction from the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. It is true that appellants did not get the previous sanction from the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society for contesting the election which was to be held on 18-7-1993. Instead, they obtained the previous sanction from the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, who was having jurisdiction over the area, for contesting the election. Learned single Judge took the view that the sanction obtained by the appellants from the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society is not in compliance with the provisions contained in bye law 32 of the Society. Consequently it was held that the Returning Officer was not justified in accepting the nomination papers filed by the appellants.