VALSARAJ Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which arises for consideration in this original Petition relates to the electoral roll which has to be the basis for the election of members to the Board of Directors of a Co-operative Society, in a case where the election is postponed due to circumstances which are out of the ordinary and attributable to extraneous factors. It is admitted that the usual rule is that the electoral roll shall be the one which includes the names of such persons as are members of the Society thirty days prior to the date of the notice convening the general body of members of the Society for election of members of the Committee. It is also not in dispute that such electrol roll shall be finally published as on thirty days prior to the date on which the election is to be conducted. THE only controversy is that, if after the electoral process begins and before actual poll, such process is interrupted and the poll is postponed to a subsequent date, the electoral roll shall be revised so as to enable the newly enrolled members also to exercise their franchise at the poll. In other words, the question is whether once the electoral process is interrupted before actual poll, the entire process should start over again, or whether it shall be continued from the stage at which it had to be left off.

(2.) THE bare facts which are necessary for appreciating the controversy in the present case are the following: THE term of office of the erstwhile Board of Directors of the Purameri Service Co-operative Bank ltd. , was to expire on 30-6-1983. On 21-4-1983 the Board of Directors passed a resolution as contemplated in R. 35 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). THE date of polling was fixed as 26-6-1983, and a further resolution was adopted convening a meeting of the general body of the Society to be held on the above date and at the above premises for the purpose of election. On receipt of a copy of the resolutions, the first respondent appointed the third respondent as Returning Officer under ext. P-2. THE Board of Directors had enrolled 1699 members at its meeting held on 21-4-1983 by a majority decision, postponing consideration in respect of over 600 others to the next meeting of the Board. That meeting was held only on 2-5-1983, at which, one of the Directors in the majority having changed sides, more than 2000 members were enrolled by the group which was in the minority on the former occasion. THE number of members enrolled after 21-4-1983 is about 4000.

(3.) REFERENCE was made to a decision of this court in support of the proposition that the latter list is relevant and the date which is material is the date thirty days prior to the issue of notice convening the general body for the purpose of election. This is the judgment in W. A. No. 294 of 1975. Govindan Nair C. J. , categorically held therein: "we are in entire agreement with the learned judge that the relevant date from which 30 days will have to be reckoned backwards for the purpose of determining whether transfers effected during that period should be ignored or not. is the date of issue of the notice for the general body meeting. This is very clear from the specific provision in R. 26 of the rules. If there have been transfers or admissions of members on any day within 30 days prior to the date of issue of the notice for the general body meeting, such persons who have been admitted and the persons in whose favour the transfer of shares have been approved shall not have the right to membership or the right to vote at the said general body meeting or at any meeting held subsequent thereto for the perpose of election". It was further held: "it is no doubt true as has been pointed out by the learned judge in the judgment under appeal that the Returning Officer has proceeded on the basis that the intimation that he purported to issue under r. 35 (3) (a) is the election notice. This is clearly a mistake. But the. important fact is by the issue of what the Returning Officer called the election notice, the notice for the general body meeting as well as the notice for the election on the 22nd June 1975 as decided by the committee, also got issued on 3-5-1975. If there has been an issuance of Ext. P2 notice for the annual general body meeting there is no error in excluding the members including the petitioner who had been admitted within 30 days prior the date 3-5-1975 either by admitting them or by transferring shares in whose favour".