PORINCHU Vs. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the President of the Thrissur District Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd., ('the Society' for short), a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act' for short). The term of the managing committee of the Society is due to expire on 4.12.2016. On 22.8.2016, the managing committee resolved to request the first respondent, the State Co- operative Election Commission ('the Election Commission' for short), to take steps to conduct election on 23.10.2016 to form a new managing committee. Ext.P1 is the resolution adopted by the managing committee in this connection. Ext.P1 resolution and the documents required to be submitted along with the same, have been submitted to the second respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies for onward transmission to the Election Commission. It is alleged that the second respondent is not forwarding the resolution to the Election Commission with a view to thwart the conduct of the election proposed by the managing committee. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the second respondent to forward Ext.P1 resolution to the Election Commission. He also seeks directions to the Election Commission to conduct election as proposed by the managing committee.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the second respondent. The stand taken by the second respondent in the statement is that the proposal to conduct the election on 23.10.2016, long prior to the expiry of the term of the managing committee in office is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that therefore the proposal of the managing committee was not recommended. It is stated that the Election Commission is empowered to conduct election only on the recommendation of the Registrar. It is, however, conceded in the statement that the second respondent has forwarded the resolution of the Society to the Election Commission without the recommendation.

(3.) A member of the Society got himself impleaded as the additional fifth respondent in the writ petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the impleading application filed by the additional fifth respondent, it is stated that the petitioner and his team in the managing committee have been indulging in various acts of corruption; that vigilance cases have been registered against them; that an enquiry under Section 65 of the Act is ordered into the affairs of the Society; that the managing committee headed by the petitioner is liable to be superseded and that election is proposed in advance to prevent the supersession of the managing committee.