K.V. JUDE DEV Vs. COMMISSIONER, DAIRY CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The election notification for the eighth respondent society was published on 19.03.2018. As per the election schedule, the date for releasing the members list in the notice board of the society was fixed on 22.03.2018 and on the same day, the list was required to be sent to the Electoral Officer. The Electoral Officer was required to display the list of voters in the eight respondent notice board. The objections of the members was to be received on or before 26.03.2018 and after consideration of the objections, the decision of the Electoral Officer was required to be displayed in the notice board on 27.03.2018 and the final list of the voters list would be released on 28.03.2018. While the date for filing nomination for the election was scheduled on 31.03.2018, the scrutiny of the nominations was fixed on 02.04.2018 and the list of eligible contestants was scheduled to be published by 05.00 p.m on 02.04.2018. The returning of the nomination was on 03.04.2018 and the final list of contestants was required to be published by 05.00 p.m of 03.04.2018. The election for the Board of Directors is scheduled on 07.04.2018.

(2.) The petitioner's name was found in Sl.80 among the total 93 members in the list of eligible voters as published by the Electoral Officer on 24.03.2018 and accordingly, he had filed his nomination before the seventh respondent Electoral Officer proposing to contest in the election for the post of Board of Directors. Subsequently, a second list came to be released on 28.03.2018 whereby the petitioner's name was removed and the total number of members was found reduced from 93 to 9 It is, in this background that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the removal of his name from the second list was illegal and made with an ulterior motive.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is a prospective candidate and that his name has been removed at the instance of the fifth respondent herein who belongs to the ruling party. Hence, he sought for a direction to the respondents 3 and 7 to accept his nomination filed before the seventh respondent Election Officer for the purpose of enabling him to contest in the ensuing election. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the second list wherein his name was removed is prima facie illegal since the said list which was allegedly countersigned by the Secretary has been forged and the concerned Secretary has also given a criminal complaint in this regard. Furthermore, he had submitted that the District Electoral Officer, who had released the first list had not signed the subsequent list. Even otherwise, the objections raised by the petitioner has not been considered since no reasoning has been given for the removal of his name in the second list.