SEBASTIAN K. D. Vs. LAJU P. V.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that comes up for interpretation is with regard to the meaning of the expression "Provided further that in the case of election on ward basis, the candidate, proposer and seconder shall be from the same ward." as appearing as the second proviso to Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 ('the Rules' for short).

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, who were the candidates for the election, learned counsel for the contesting respondents as well as the learned Special Government Pleader for the State and with their consent we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

(3.) A brief history would be necessary. The Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder contains provisions for election of members to the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society. Prior to 2013, there were some co-operative societies, which by virtue of their bye-laws were conducting elections on ward basis after dividing the Co-operative Societies into wards. There were exceptions as well. In 2013, i.e., with effect from 14.2.2013, the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act ('the Act' for short) was amended and provisions were made for elections on ward basis for certain types of Co-operative Societies. Later, with effect from 26.11.2014, the Rules were amended and inter alia second proviso was added to Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Rules as quoted above. Subsequently, by Ordinance No.4/2017 which came into effect on and from 10.4.2017, the amendment to Sec. 28(1), which was incorporated with effect from 14.2.2013 was deleted. We will deal with this exercise of addition and deletion with reference to the judgment of this Court dated 29.6.2017 in W.A. No.1026 of 2017 [K.S. Anil kumar Vs. Kerala State Cooperative Election Commission and others]. After the said ordinance, on 12.4.2017, the State Election Commission issued election notification in respect of the appellants' Co-operative Society. So far as the Co-operative Society is concerned, namely, the Thuruthippuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.1789, its bye-laws provided for ward basis elections. The notification, thus being issued with regard to election, steps were to be taken for ward based election. The appellants 1 to 5, who were made additional respondents 6 to 10 in the writ petition filed their nominations. Their nominations were rejected on the ground that they had not filed nominations in respect of wards, of which they were members. It appears that though the candidate, proposer and the seconder were of the same ward, they did not belong to the ward from which election was sought. Later, they filed objection before the State Election Commission making certain complaints with regard to the electoral rolls. The 1st appellant also challenged the order of the Returning Officer by filing W.P.(C) No.15325 of 2017, but during its pendency, basing on the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that steps were underway in view of Ordinance No.4 of 2017, the Writ Petition was closed.