AOMANATHAN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P5 proceedings drawn up by the third respondent - Returning Officer, who had been authorised to conduct an election to the Perumbalam Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Alappuzha, (4th respondent) (herein after referred to as the Society) is under challenge by the Chairman of the Administrative Committee, who is presently in office. The Society came into existence in 1995, but the Committee constituted could not carry out any functioning and the Department was constrained to appoint an Administrator in the same year, under S.33 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. The term of the Administrator was not extended thereafter and practically the activities of the Society became defunct. After about eight years, there were proposals for resurrecting the Society. By Ext. P1 proceedings, the Department had appointed an Administrative Committee for reviving the institution. The order required them to restart the functioning of the institution and also for taking steps for conducting an election, for constituting a Director Board. The period of the Committee was stipulated as three months from 9.6.2003. It appears that the term had been extended and during the said period a resolution had been passed to hold an election, so as to hand over charge to an elected committee. After due verification, the Deputy Director of Dairy Development had passed an order (Ext. P3) dt.17.11.2003 appointing a Returning Officer to hold the election.

(2.) A draft voters list of 63 persons had been prepared by the Committee which had been counter signed and published on 21.11.2003 by the Returning Officer. However, on 26.11.2003, examining the objections that had been raised against the voters list, the Returning Officer held that the members who had been enrolled by the Administrative Committee did not merit membership and since the members originally who were on the rolls and who were deemed as qualified for participating in the election were less than 10, it would not have been possible to continue the process of election. The election is countermanded. This is the subject matter of the Writ Petition.

(3.) I.A.No. 128 of 2003 has been filed by two members of the Society for getting themselves impleaded and they had put up a stand that the decision of the Returning Officer was erroneous, since there were sufficient members who were qualified and the elections should have been held. Apparently the attempt was to exclude the newly enrolled members from the election. These only betray the small minds of persons, who miss the woods and only see the trees. However, the objection appears to be inconsequential as dog in the manger. The short question is whether it may be possible for the Returning Officer to hold that the members enrolled by the Administrative Committee could be considered as members who had a right to participate in the election.