SURESH Vs. HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Original Petitions are filed regarding rejection of their nomination papers for contesting for the election to the executive Committee of the second respondent, Kerala High Court Advocates' association. Second respondent is a Bar Association as prescribed in the advocates Act and the Advocates Welfare Fund Rules. With regard to O. P. No. 31185 of 1999, for the petitioner therein five nomination papers were submitted for the post of Vice President. The first three nomination papers were proposed by three different advocates with the name K. B. Suresh. Membership number was given in two nomination papers and in one nomination paper address was not given after the name. It is stated by the Returning Officer who was present in court that petitioner's name is written in the membership register as Suresh k. B. and not K. B. Suresh. Apart from the above defect, his membership number was also written in the nomination form which is unwarranted as there is another column for putting membership number. In the first column, only name can be written. With regard to the fourth nomination paper, the only ground taken is that even though Suresh K. B. itself is written membership number is also written along with the name Suresh K. B. With regard to the fifth nomination paper, name was correctly written as Suresh K. B. and is tally with the register. It is proposed by one Binod K. V. and seconded by Ramachandran M. Sri. Ramachandran's membership number is also written. But it is stated that there is a spelling mistake as the letter 'd' was accidently omitted. Therefore, instead of Ramachandran it is written as Ramachanran.

(2.) ON going through the file which was produced by the returning Officer, there is no dispute regarding identity of the petitioner. R. 42 of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association Rules and Regulations, 1971, the only provision regarding acceptance of nomination, reads as follows: "42. The nominations shall be signed by a proposer and a seconder, and shall also contain a statement of willingness of the proposed candidate to accept the office, if elected. The proposer, seconder and the candidate proposed shall be members included in the final list of voters handed over to the Returning Officer. " When the name K. B. Suresh was written the membership number was also given so that there cannot be any dispute regarding identity of person. In three nominations, the name K. B. Suresh was written and out of which in two nominations membership number was also specifically written. Initial can be written before the name and after the name unless it is stated specifically otherwise in the prescribed form. In this case, identity is not disputed. Merely because membership number was also written along with the name it cannot be stated that identity cannot be found out or there is substantial mistake in the nomination paper. Writing of membership number along with the name avoids any dispute regarding identity of person. In the fourth nomination name Suresh k. B. itself is written. There also membership number was also written to avoid any confusion regarding identity. In the fifth nomination also the name Suresh k. B. itself is mentioned without any membership number. But it was rejected only because there is a spelling mistake in the name of seconder. His roll number was also written. I see no substantial mistake so as to attract rejection of the nomination paper.

(3.) WITH regard to O. P. No. 31343 of 1999, it is rejected because the post in which he is contesting is not mentioned in the nomination paper. The election was for the posts of President of the Society, Vice president of the Society, Treasurer, member of the committee etc. It is not mentioned in which post he is contesting. In that column it is only mentioned as 'executive Committee'. It cannot be presumed that he filed the nomination paper for being elected as a member of Executive Committee. Therefore, rejection of nomination in this case is correct and valid. Both the Original Petitions are disposed of accordingly. . .