Vasavan vs Returning Officer and Another

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.—The petitioner has approached this court challenging rejection of his nomination for election to the Board of Directors of the second respondent Bank. He submitted nomination for being elected to the Board from Ward No. 1. His nomination was duly proposed and seconded by two voters included in the final voters list. But, his nomination paper was rejected on the ground that those persons who proposed and seconded him were not the voters of Ward No. 1. For a Primary Co-operative Bank like the second respondent, even to elect a member from a Ward, all the members in the Society including those in the other wards can exercise their votes. The nomination is as provided in Rule 35(3)(c)(ii) which provides as follows:-- Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the list of members. One of the members shall sign the Form as proposer and the other as seconder for the nomination. The nomination paper shall also contain a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election.

This provision do not mention that the proposer and seconder shall be from the very same ward. It only provides that they shall be the persons included in the list of members alone. The bye-laws of the society also do not provide for the conditions insisted by the Returning Officer. The election notification, Ext.P1 also do not make mention of any such condition. The rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is thus illegal and accordingly quashed.

Normally, this court will not interfere at any stage of the election in a Co-operative Society, after the notification like Ext.P1 is issued. But, when there is gross violation of the statutory provisions, this court will intervene to protect the rights of the incumbents concerned. It is in the above circumstances that I am inclined to quash the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner and to direct the Returning Officer to accept his nomination, if it is otherwise proper. The original petition is allowed to the above extent.

There is no reason to issue notice to the second respondent, because, it is for electing the Board of second respondent that election is being conducted and second respondent is not prejudiced by this judgment.

The original petition is disposed of as above.