PANKAJAKSHA PANICKER Vs. VENUGOPALAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by respondents 2 to 10 in the writ petition, O. P. 6406 of 1993-K against the judgment dated 21-7-1993 of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition. The respondents 1 to 9 in this appeal are the writ petitioners. Respondent 10 is the first respondent in the writ petition. Respondents 11 to 13 are respondents 11 to 13 in the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: THE election to the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society (THE Kappikadu Ksheerolpadaka sahakarana Sanghom (D) APCOS, Poovachal P. O. , Trivandrum) was to be held on 22-5-1993. THE managing Committee consists of 9 members. On 21-4-1993, as per Ext. P1, election notice was issued by the Returning Officer showing that nine members are to be elected in the election to be held on 22-5-1993. THE dates fixed for filing the nomination papers were from 1-5-1993 to 6-5-1993. THE scrutiny was to take place on 7-5-1993. THE nine respondents (writ petitioners) filed their nominations on time.

(3.) FINALLY, this writ petition and the connected writ petition were heard and allowed by judgment dated 21-7-1993, holding that the rejection of the nominations was patently illegal. On the question whether when the nominations are rejected on patently illegal grounds, the affected parties could approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the learned single judge relied upon the recent rulings of this court in Joy v. Joint Registrar (1989 (1) KLT 854) and in Ravi v. Kottayam Co-operative Urban bank Ltd (1993 (1) KLT 644) and held that they could. The learned single judge then went further and held that the consequential proceedings of the Returning officer declaring the appellants as elected to the Managing Committee, were also liable to be set aside. The result was that the nominations of the writ petitioners were to be treated as valid and a fresh election was to be held. It is against this judgment that the appellants have preferred this writ appeal.