SURTHI VENKATESH Vs. ELECTION COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation.

(2.) Petitioner was Ex-Member of Sri Somavamsha Shasatrarjuna Kshatriya Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Society Limited, Hyderabad (second respondent herein). His membership was terminated by resolution dtd. 22/2/2020. Challenging the said termination, petitioner filed W P No. 15890 of 2020 which is pending consideration before this Court. Election notice was issued on 5/1/2021 to conduct elections to elect two Directors who are retiring by rotation. As per the schedule announced, nomination forms were available from 11/1/2021 to 20/1/2021; nominations were to be filed from 18/1/2021 to 22/1/2021 and election is scheduled to be held on 7/2/2021. One of the conditions imposed to contest the elections is that person must be a shareholder/ member whose name is on the members' rolls of the society as on 31/12/2020. As petitioner was terminated from membership, this clause is staring at him. He therefore represented to the Chairman of Election Committee on 16/1/2021 requesting him to permit him to file nominations as he is contesting the termination in writ petition pending consideration before the High Court and likely to be taken up. Said request of the writ petitioner was rejected vide intimation dtd. 20/1/2021 informing the petitioner that since he cease to be a member of the society and in view of first of the terms and conditions, he is not eligible to contest and therefore the question of permitting him to file nominations, does not arise. The said decision and election notification is assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) Extensive submissions are made by learned counsel for petitioner to persuade the Court to stop the election process or to direct the respondents to receive the nomination of the petitioner and to permit him to contest the election. Learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that the termination of his membership of the society is ex-facie illegal as elementary principles required to be observed before terminating the membership were not followed, in as much as no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner as admitted by second respondent management. That being so, as termination has civil and evil consequences, it is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, petitioner is deemed to be a member of the second respondent society and thus entitled to contest the election. Depriving the petitioner to contest the election would be offending Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He therefore pleads that it is a fit case for this Court to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to afford to petitioner opportunity to contest in the elections.