P. Sainudheen vs The Electoral Officer to Wayanad, The Returning Officer to Wayanad and Skaria. K.A., President

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—In this writ petition, the challenge is against the acceptance of the nomination of the third respondent. The election to the managing committee was scheduled to be conducted on 27.6.2010. The nomination of the third respondent was accepted by the Returning Officer.

The petitioner''s contention is that the third respondent is ineligible to contest the election due to the prohibition contained in Rule 45(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. It is pointed out that the third respondent is a delegate of another society, in Wayanad District Wholesale Consumer''s Co-operative Store and he is also an individual member in the said society. Thus, it is submitted that the disqualification is attracted.

The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that he is the President of Pulpally Labour Contract Co-operative Society which is a member of the Wholesale Co-operative Store. After becoming a member, he put in a request on 27.7.2009 to remove him from the individual membership of the wholesale store, as per Ext.R3(a). It is therefore pointed out that from the date of acceptance of Ext.R3(a), he has ceased to be an individual member. When the preliminary voters list was published, finding his name along with others, he submitted Ext.R3(b) letter to the Returning Officer. It is further pointed out that the nomination of the third respondent was accepted by the Returning Officer after scrutiny and the petitioner has not raised any objection to the acceptance of the nomination. He is not a candidate nor a proposer and if at all he has got any complaint, he will have to file an election petition after declaration of the results.

Apart from the above, it is pointed out that the third respondent has filed W.P.(C) No. 18192/2010 against the actions of the Administrator and the Electoral Officer in not including 25 institutional members including that of the third respondent in the voters list and in the light of the interim order passed in the said writ petition, the nominations were directed to be accepted and they have been allowed to vote also. After the decision in W.A. No. 1054/2010 votes have been counted and the third respondent has got the highest vote. It is also pointed out that this writ petition is filed long after the election proceedings were over including the counting of votes. The nomination was accepted on 15.6.2010, election was over on 27.6.2010 and counting was held on 26.7.2010.

Evidently, the writ petition was presented only on 11.8.2010, long after the acceptance of the nomination and the election was over. The petitioner has not raised any objection to the acceptance of nomination as evident from his pleadings also. The third respondent was allowed to contest the election in the light of the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No. 18192/2010.

Apart from that, it is the contention of the third respondent that he has ceased to be an individual member. At any rate, the remedy of the petitioner is to challenge the election of the third respondent, if ultimately he is declared elected, by way of election petition u/s 69 of the Act, especially in the light of the factual disputes.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.