DAMODARAN Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two related original petitions concern the elections to the managing committee of the 4th respondent Bank, which is a Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act for short). O.P. No. 6007 of 1988 came up for preliminary hearing yesterday. Since the questions involved were the same as in O.P. No. 5694 of 1988, the learned Government Pleader appeared and took notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The Bank itself had not entered appearance, in the other case though notice has been served.

(2.) This court does not generally entertain challenges at the stage of scrutiny of nominations for election to the committee of a Cooperative Society, as they are best left to be agitated in an election petition filed under S.69 of the Act. In fact the Supreme Court has in Muthuswamy v. Natarajan, AIR 1988 SC 616 held that there should ordinarily be no interference at the intermediate stage of an election process under Art.226 of the Constitution. But the facts of these cases and the rejection of the nominations are so revolting to common sense and judicial conscience that I feel these are cases where an exception has to be made.

(3.) The schedule for election to the managing committee of the 4th respondent Bank was published by the third respondent Returning Officer as per the notice Ext. P2 Nominations were to be submitted on 11-7-1988 and the scrutiny was fixed for 12-7-1988. 43 nominations including those of the petitioners were submitted on 11-7-1988. The notification Ext. P2 required the nomination to be supported by an affidavit of the candidate testifying that he was not disqualified under R.44. This affidavit had to be attested either by a gazetted officer or by an advocate. The affidavits of the various petitioners in these two original petitions were attested by Sri.C.K. Sreedharan, an advocate of the Hosdurg Bar, all of them on 11-7-1988. They contained his signature as attestor, but did not contain any seal. But all these nominations (except that of the 8th petitioner in O.P. No. 6007 of 1988) were rejected by the Returning Officer after scrutiny on 12-7-1988 on the ground that the identity of the attesting authority was not proved beyond doubt, "as there was no rubber seal". Thus the only ground on which the nominations stood rejected was that the attesting advocate C.K. Sreedharan did not affix his seal as pan of the attestation.