Madras High Court
K.Natarajan vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 9 May, 2018
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09-05-2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM W.P.Nos.12033, 12037, 12038, 12056, 12059 to 12066, 12067, 12068, 12069, 12071 to 12074, 12077, 12078, 12079 to 12082, 12100, 12101, 12104, 12116, 12130, 12132, 12157, 12173, 12181, 12199, 12201 to 12205, 12209 to 12219, 12229, 12231, 12238, 12243, 12261, 12263, 12274, 12276 and 12280 of 2018 And WMP Nos. 14034, 14035, 14036, 14039 to 14042, 14072, 14073, 14074, 14079, 14080, 14081 to 14084, 14103 to 14108, 14149, 14150, 14203, 14204, 14230, 14235 to 14239, 14244 to 14265, 14290, 14298, 14299, 14321, 14322, 14324 to 14326, 14340, 14343, 14344, 14351, 14352 and 14353 of 2018 WP No.12033 of 2018: 1.K.Natarajan 2.N.Dhanasekaran 3.G.Palani 4.N.Rajendran 5.K.Velayutham 6.M.Jothi 7.N.Subramani 8.R.Parveen Beham .. Petitioners vs. 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Election Commission, represented by Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner, Kamadenu Co-op. Super Market Building, 273, Scheme Road, Subbarayan Nagar, Teynampet, Chennai-18. 3.Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), No.22, 4th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-22. 4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Chennai Region/District Election Officer for Co-operative Housing Societies, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. 5.The Returning Officer for Pallavan Transport Corporation, Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., MDS/HSG/101, Pallavan Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. 6.Pallavan Transport Corporation Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., MDS/HSG/101, Represented by its Secretary, Pallavan Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. 7.Thiru Saravanan 8.N.Sounder 9.K.S.Ravichandran 10.M.Raji 11.S.Raja 12.M.Ramadoss 13.J.Malarvizhi Sheela 14.P.Rajendran 15.K.Kothandan 16.G.Arasu 17.S.Mallika 18.J.Kasthuri 19.V.A.Murugan .. Respondents WP No.12033 of 2018 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the election notification dated 21.4.2018 issued by the fourth respondent in Se.Ma.Tho.E./ 501/ Varaikalai/2018, in so far as the election to elect the members of the Board of Directors of the sixth respondent Society and the lists of final valid nominations for election to the Board of sixth respondent Society, published by the fifth/seventh respondent on 2.5.2018, quash the same and all consequential proceedings thereto and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fair and free election for the sixth respondent society afresh, within a specified time by allowing the petitioner and other eligible intending candidates to file nominations; by accepting their nominations and allowing them to contest the election and to take appropriate action against the fifth/seven respondent for having violated the Rules and Procedures and for having supported only a particular group and for his illegal rejection of our nominations. For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose (WPs 12033, 12100,12101,12263/18), Mr.K.Selvaraj (Wps 12037, 12038/18 Mr.C.Prakasam (WPs 12056,12071 to 12074,12229,12231/18), Mr.S.Sugendran (WPs 12059 to 12066, 12181/18), Mr.S.Sathiaseelan (WPs 12067, 12068&12069,12201to12205/18), Mr.R.Y.George Williams (WP 12077/ 18, Mr.R.Mohana Raja (WP 12078/18 Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan (WPs 12079 to 12082/18), Ms.R.Anitha (WP 12104/ 18), Mr.S.Paul Gnanamuthu (WP 12116/18), Mr.M.Selvam (WP 12130/18), Mr.K.Balu (WP 12132/18), Mr.T.Pappaiah Dharma- rajan (Wp 12157/18), Mr.K.Raja (Wp 12173/18), Mr.M.Baskar (WP 12199/18), Mr.K.Elango (WPs 12209 to 12219/18), Mr.R.Neela- kandan for Mr.G.Sankaran (WP 12238/18), Mr.D.Bharathy (WP 12243/18),Mr.R.Thirumoorthy (WP 12261/18),Mr.R.Prabakar (WPs 12274,12276/18)&Mr.Sathish Kumar (WP 12280/18). For Respondents-R-1, R-3&R-4 in WP 12033/18, R-2&R-3 in Wps 12037&12038/18, R-2&R-3 in WPs 12056,12231/18, R-1, R-3&R-4 in Wps 12059 to 12066/18, R-2 to R-4 in WPs 12067&12068,12201to12205/18, R-2&R-3 in Wps 12071to 12074, 12229,12231,12243/18, R-2 to R-4 in WP 12077/18, R-2 in WP 12078/18, R-1, R-3,R-4&R-5 in Wps 12079 to 12082/18, R-1,R-3&R-4 in Wps 12100,12101,12104/18, R-1&R-3 in WP 12116/18, R-1, R-2, R-4&R-5 in WP 12130/18, R-2 to R-4 in WPs 12132, 12157,12209 to 12219/18, R-1, R-2&R-4 in WP 12173/18, R-1, R-3&R-4 in WPs 12181,12263/18, R-2 in WP 12199/18, R-1&R-2 in WP 12238/18, R-2,R-3&R-5 in WP 12261/18,R-2&R-3 in WPs 12276,12280/18 :Mr.P.H.Aravindh Pandian, Addl.Advocate General assisted by Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, Special Government Pleader. For Respondent-2 in WPs 12033,12263/18, R-1 in WPs 12037,12229,12243/18, 12038,12201 to 12205/18, R-1 in WPs 12056, 12199,12261,12280, 12209 to 12219/,12274,1227618, R-2 in WPs 12059 to 12066,12181/18, R-1 in WPs 12067,12068& 12069/18, R-1 in Wps 12071 to 12074/18, R-1 in WPs 12077,12078 /18, R-2 in Wps 12079 to 12082/18, R-2 in Wps 12100&12101/18, R-2 in WPs 12104,12116/18, R-3 in WP 12130/18, R-1 in WPs 12132,12157, 12231/18, R-3 in WPs 12173,12238/18, R-2&R-3 in WP 12274/18. : Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, Standing Counsel. C O M M O N O R D E R
These batch of writ petitions are filed in respect of the irregularities, illegalities, malpractices and corrupt activities occurred in the process of election conducted to elect the members of the Board for various Co-operative Societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, across the State.
2. The respective learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, largely made complaints that the irregularities and illegalities crept in even from the initial stage of election. It is relevant to state that at the time of filing of nominations and even at the time of scrutiny and thereafter various irregularities and illegalities were identified and in some cases, the Election Officers colluded with some contesting candidates and made the election an empty formality.
3. At the outset, the allegations are mostly related to violation of the procedures prescribed under Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules and large scale irregularities, illegalities and corrupt activities.
4. The learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, made a submission that in certain cases these illegalities and corrupt activities were occurred with the assistance of the Election Officers themselves. Further, it is contended that there was no election at all in the eye of law. If at all the elections are to be conducted, the authorities are bound to follow the rules and the procedures prescribed and follow the procedures in a fair and transparent manner. However, the State, being a model, has failed to follow the Rule of Law. Various instances are cited by the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners and, such instances, even after submission of the representations to the State Election Commission, are kept pending without disposal. Thus, all these writ petitioners are constrained to move these batch of writ petitions, challenging the very election itself.
5. The grievances of the writ petitioners are multi-folded and those grievances are mostly in relation to the process of election and the manner in which the elections were conducted by the Election Officers. Under these circumstances, this Court is bound to consider the basic legal principles to be followed in conduct of elections.
6. Co-operative Societies are registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The Act, being a special one, is to be followed scrupulously by the competent authorities and there cannot be any violation. The co-operative movement has been established for the benefit and welfare of the people of a particular locality. The great movement of co-operation has now been paralised on account of large scale irregularities and illegalities crept in the administration of these Co-operative Societies. Now the State is witnessing great loss and spirit in this co-operative movement. The co-operative movement is a national level movement which was constituted and developed by some great souls putting their hard work and by contributing their valuable services. Recently, we find drastic deterioration in developing a co-operative movement in the State as well as across the country.
7. This Court would like to know who is responsible for these kinds of deteriorations in respect of such a great movement and the Co-operative Societies. The Co-operative Societies are constituted and registered to cater the needs of the poor and needy people in the villages and urban areas. The people of the villages and urban areas are benefited from and out of these Co-operative Societies. Fair price schemes and systems are implemented by the State through these Co-operative Societies. Thus, it is the duty of the State to see that such co-operative movement is not killed and it must be developed with all means. In order to maintain the Co-operative Societies, the State has to ensure that the administration of such Societies are in tact and elections are conducted in a democratic manner. The cooperative is now incorporated in the Schedule 9-B of the Constitution. The constitutional status has been provided to these Co-operative Societies and therefore, the State is duty bound to maintain the Societies with utmost integrity and the schemes introduced by the States through Co-operative Societies are to be implemented in its letter and spirit and for the benefit of poor and needy people of villages, rural and urban areas.
8. The learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, contended that soon after the completion of the elections in these Co-operative Societies, various complaints were made before the State Election Commission, which is the body constituted under the provisions of the Act to look into the irregularities. However, certain applications were disposed of and the large scale allegations are not even considered by Election Commission itself. Thus these writ petitioners are constrained to move this Court for an appropriate relief.
9. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, made a submission that actions were taken by the Election Commission as well as by the State in a swift manner. There was no delay on the part of the Election Commission in dealing with these grievance petitions submitted by the aggrieved persons as well as by the Societies. The Election Commission is acted in accordance with the procedures and the rules contemplated. There is no delay or lacuna on the part of the Election Commission as well as by the State in dealing with these election matters in respect of the Co-operative Societies.
10. The learned Additional Advocate General further proceeded by stating that number of writ petitions were filed and a batch of writ petitions are pending before the Principal Bench and before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. No interim orders were granted. However, in one case of public interest litigation, an order of status-quo was granted. Challenging the said order, the respondents filed Special Leave Petition Appeal (C) Nos.10051 to 10059 of 2018, the Honourable Supreme Court of India disposed of the Special Leave Petitions on 7.5.2018 and the order of the Apex Court is extracted hereunder:-
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we think it appropriate to pass the following order:-
(a) The High Court shall decide WP(MD) Nos. 7620/2018, 7186/2018 and 6909/2018 by the end of June, 2018;
(b) The High Court would be at liberty, if it feels appropriate, to issue further directions, including for declaration of results of the election if on an assessment of facts, it considers any such direction to be appropriate;
(c) The parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournments before the High Court;
(d) The High Court shall address all issues including the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions; and
(e) If the High Court considers it appropriate, it may also issue other directions, so that the members of the individual societies are not adversely affected in their requirements or needs as members.
In view of the above, the special leave petitions stand disposed of.
11. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the Apex Court has held that the High Court shall address all the issues including the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions and if the High Court considers it appropriate, it may also issue other directions, so that the members of the individual societies are not adversely affected in their requirements or needs as members.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, time and again, settled the principles in respect of the grant of interim orders once the process of election is set in motion. The Supreme Court in unequivocal terms ruled that once the election process has commenced, then the Courts shall not grant any interim orders stalling the elections. All such disputes are to be resolved only after completion of the election and by way of an election dispute. In the presence scenario in respect of the Co-operative Societies, there is a provision to adjudicate these election disputes by way of an election petition under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. When there is a provision to adjudicate the election disputes in the Statute, the High Courts need not interfere during the intermittent period of elections.
13. The question arises whether such a principle can be followed where there is large scale irregularities, illegalities and corrupt activities are brought to the knowledge of the Constitutional Courts. Undoubtedly, the Constitutional Courts cannot shut its eyes in respect of large scale corrupt activities in respect of the elections which is the pillar for a vibrant democracy. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that the Rule of Law is maintained in all respects by the Executives and by all concerned.
14. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that it is not preferable to stall the entire election process. In the present writ petitions, it is informed that the elections were already conducted in respect of the Co-operative Societies. Thus, the elections are not in process and the same had been already conducted. In view of the fact that these writ petitions are now before this Court, after completion of the elections, it is preferable that the remedy available under the Act to be exhausted by all the aggrieved persons.
15. This apart, this Court cannot go into the original documents and the evidences and the materials produced by these aggrieved persons. In the event of non-adjudication of the materials concerned, the Courts cannot come to the conclusion whether such allegations are true or not. In the absence of ascertaining the genuinity or otherwise of the allegations, the High Courts cannot come to the conclusion that the election process was not conducted in accordance with the rules in force. Thus, it is condition precedent that all the materials, at the first instance, to be considered by the State Election Commission by taking a decision and after a decision is taken and an order is passed by the Election Commission, then it is for the aggrieved persons to approach the competent authority under Section 90 of the Act, by raising disputes.
16. Institutional respects are to be protected. Intermittent intervention by the High Courts in all circumstances are not certainly preferable. If the institutional powers provided under the Statutes are not protected, then for each and everything, the citizen will be forced to approach the High Courts, which is not the philosophy and idea of the Constitution of India. The institutions created under the Statutes must be made to function in accordance with law. In the event of any failure, then the High Courts can interfere. Thus the aggrieved persons must be allowed to approach the institutions created under the Statutes for the redressal of their remedies at the first instance and thereafter, they are at liberty to approach the High Courts by way of writ petitions. In short, exhausting alternate remedy, which is the quasi judicial in nature, is mandatory. Only on exceptional circumstances, the High Courts can dispense with the exhaustion of an alternate remedy.
17. The learned counsel Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission, also opposed the contentions of the writ petitioners by stating that the Supreme Court in clear terms directed that all the issues, including the maintainability of these writ petitions are to be considered. Further, these writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the process of election had already completed and in large number of Co-operative Societies, the results were also declared and in respect of few Co-operative Societies, the results are yet to be declared. Under these circumstances, it is left open to the aggrieved persons to approach the State Election Commission at the first instance and thereafter raise a dispute under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The learned counsel is of an opinion that without exhausting the remedies available under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, no writ can be entertained against the election disputes.
18. Thus, these writ petitions are to be rejected in limine on the ground that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the remedy provided under the Act, itself has not been exhausted.
19. Let us now consider the provisions of the Act. The State Election Commission is appointed under Section 33-A of the Act and the same reads as under:
33A. Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commission. - (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to a co-operative society shall vest in the Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commission consisting of a Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner.
(2) The Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner shall be appointed by the Government.
(3) No person shall be qualified for appointment as Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner unless he is or has been an officer of the Government not below the rank of Secretary to the Government.
(4) The Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office:
Provided that a person appointed as Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner shall retire from office if he completes the age of sixty-five years during the term of his office.
(5) Subject to the provision of sub-section (3), the conditions of service of the Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner shall be such as may be prescribed.
(6) The Government may make available to the Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the Tamil Nadu State Co-operative Societies Election Commission by sub-section (1).
20. Section 90 of the Act, deals with disputes. The disputes in relation to the elections are provided in Section 90(1)(d) Explanation to (iii) and the said provision reads as under:
(iii) a decision by the Board under sub-section (3) of Section 34: Provided that no dispute relating to, or in connection with, any election shall be referred under this sub-section till the date of the declaration of the result of such election.
21. Thus, the dispute in relation to the elections shall be adjudicated by the competent authorities under the provisions of Section 90 of the Act. Thus, there is no ambiguity in respect of the elections adjudication of the election disputes under Section 90 of the Act.
22. However, the learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, raised a ground that the election disputes can be adjudicated under Section 90 of the Act only after the declaration of elections by the Election Officer and not before that. However, these writ petitions are filed on the ground that even from the commencement of election, there were large scale irregularities and illegalities. Such being the nature of corrupt activities found during the process of election, the writ petitioners have no opportunity except by approaching this Honourable Court.
23. The abovesaid provision cited in Section 90 stipulates that all election disputes can be adjudicated after the declaration of results by the Election Commissioner.
24. Further Section 90 sub-clause (9)(a)(iii) of the Act, also states that when the dispute is in respect of, or in connection with, any election, the period of limitation shall be two months from the date of declaration of the result of the election. Thus, all the election disputes under Section 90 of the Act is to be filed within a period of two months from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
25. Thus, it is clear that all the election disputes are to be adjudicated by the competent authorities under Section 90 of the Act and such applications challenging the elections are to be preferred by the aggrieved persons, within a period of two months from the date of declaration of the result of the election.
26. May that it be, this Court is of an opinion that the procedures to be followed to conduct elections are well enumerated in Rule 52 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. On a perusal of the entire procedures contemplated under the Rules, this Court is of an opinion that if these rules and the procedures are strictly followed, there cannot be any scope for any disputes at all. However, now it is found that the Election Officers also had involved in certain irregularities, illegalities and corrupt activities and the procedures contemplated under Rule 52 of the Rules had not been followed in many number of cases.
27. Rule 52 of the Rules elaborates the procedures to be adopted for conduct of elections. Undoubtedly, the procedure is transparent and elaborate in nature. Even the receiving of nomination and further processes are very well enumerated in Rule 52 of the Rules. Thus, it is for the State Election Commission to ensure that all the Election Commissioners appointed to conduct election to these Co-operative Societies follow these procedures scrupulously and without any violation. In the event of identifying any such violation by these Election Officers or if there is any collusion on the part of these Election Officers, the State Election Commission must act vigilantly and initiate appropriate actions under the Act and the Rules. In this regard, Rule 52-A sub-clause (5) read as under:-
(5) The District Election Officers, Electoral Officers, Election Officers, Polling Officers and any other officers appointed under the Rules, any police officers designated for the time being by the State Government for the conduct of any elections, shall be deemed to be on deputation to the Election Commission for the period commencing on and from the date of preparation of electoral rolls till its completion and from the date of notification calling for such elections and ending with the date of completion of such elections and such officer shall, during that period, be subject to the control, superintendence and discipline of the Election Commission.
28. The procedures to be followed and the powers and the functions of the Election Commission also well enumerated in Rule 52-A of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules. The Election Commissioners are none other than the Government Officials. Thus, they are bound by the Rule of Law.
29. These Election Officers/Public Officials, if they commit any irregularities or illegalities with an ulterior motive or with an intention, they are not only liable to be punished under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules, but also liable to be punished under the Public Servants Discipline and Appeal Rules, under the Conduct Rules and also under the Penal provisions. Thus, it is needless to mention that all such irregularities, illegalities, if any committed by these public officials/Election Officers, the State Election Commission must be vigilant and initiate appropriate action at all levels, including the initiation of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The State Election Commission, being an Apex Body under the Act, is bound to act in a fair and transparent manner. The Election Commission is a neutral body. The Election Commission is accountable to the public at large. The Election Commission is not accountable only to the Government. The Election Commission is accountable to the members of Co-operative Societies and the people of the State. The Election Commission, being an important body, to protect the democratic principles of this nation, any Election Commissioner appointed under the Statute must be free, fair and strict in following the rules in force. If the Election Commission fails to implement the Rule of Law, the democracy in the State and the nation will fail. If the democracy fails then the very concept and the perspectives of the Constitution will be defeated. The preamble Constitution of India enumerates that we the people of India.
30. Thus, we the people of India are the supreme in respect of the administration of the nation. Thus, there cannot be any violations in this regard, more specifically, by the Election Commissioners appointed under the Statute. The preamble of the constitution enumerates the philosophy and ethos of the constitution. Thus, this Court is of a strong opinion that the Election Commission cannot yield or succumb to the pressures or any other external affairs of any person including the State Officials and political parties. The Election Commission, being an independent body, appointed under the provisions of the Act itself, they are bound to act in the manner known to law.
31. It is brought to the notice of this Court that number of Societies for which elections notified were 18,435, number of vacancies for which elections conducted were 1,84,970, number of grievance petitions received as on starting from 1.3.2018 to 7.5.2018 are 1,525, number of Societies involved in such grievance petitions were about 860, number of Societies wherein the elections cancelled were 412. Thus, it is placed before this Court that in respect of 412 Co-operative Societies, the elections were declared as cancelled and 38 applications were rejected and remaining 410 grievance petitions are under consideration.
32. The learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, state that there are large number of grievance petitions still are to be adjudicated and placed before the Election Commission. This apart, the time limit of two months is provided to these persons even to raise their dispute under Section 90 of the Act. Therefore, the election cannot confine itself in respect of the applications now pending before the Commission. All the grievance applications, including the materials and the fresh petitions, available with the persons are also to be considered.
33. Thus, it is not, as if, the State Election Commission can confine the grievance petitions, only in respect of 410 petitions alone. The aggrieved persons are still raising various objections in respect of conduct of elections and all those representations/ applications, if any received by the State Election Commission, are to be scrutinised by the authorities and appropriate decision is to be taken and an order to be passed by providing reasons. The application of mind in this regard by the Election Commission is vital. It is not, as if the State Election Commission can pass orders in a routine manner. The State Election Commission has to consider all the materials available on record and by providing personal hearings, if there is a specific request and there after apply its mind independently and take a decision. Application of mind means, the relevant materials to be considered for arriving a conclusion should be considered. Thus, the application of mind does not mean that the Election Commission can act based on the records alone. The Election Commission is bound to view the possible damages, if any, in the event of upholding the elections or in the event of cancellation of election. Both the views are to be taken and the Election Commission, being a statutory body and exercising their powers akin to that of a judicial power, they are bound to act in a fair and transparent manner. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that all such grievances, including the grievance to be raised, if any by the aggrieved persons are also to be considered on merits and in accordance with law.
34. As already stated in earlier paragraphs, this Court is of an opinion that an inhouse remedy is vital to these aggrieved persons under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The disputes are to be raised before the competent authority notified under the provisions of the Act. The disputes are also to be adjudicated in the manner prescribed under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. An enquiry is to be conducted, which is quasi judicial in nature. The authority competent dealing with a suit under Section 90 of the Act, has to issue summons to the parties concerned, conduct an enquiry by providing opportunity and by marking the documents, by adducing evidences and witnesses and thereafter take a decision. This Court is of an opinion that the disputes under Section 90 of the Act is to be dealt with akin to that of a trial in a Civil Court. Undoubtedly, the provisions of the Limitation Act and the Code of Civil Procedures are also applicable at the time of conducting the enquiry before the competent authorities under Section 90 of the Act. Therefore, it is almost to be treated as a civil suit for the purpose of adjudication and such a nature of quasi judicial proceedings are to be conducted in a fair and transparent manner and as per the procedures contemplated under the Act and the Rules.
35. This being the legal provisions of the Act and the Rules, this Court is of an opinion that all the aggrieved persons from and out of the elections conducted in respect of the Co-operative Societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 across the State is at liberty to submit any further representations/objections or materials, if any available with them to the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission on receipt of all such materials, call for remarks from the Election Officer and other officials concerned, if necessary. Thereafter, the Election Commission is at liberty to conduct an enquiry in the manner known to law and take a decision in accordance with the procedures contemplated. If the final decision is taken by the Election Commission and an order is passed, then the same is to be communicated to the parties concerned without causing any undue delay. In view of the fact that the limitation of two months period is prescribed under Section 90 of the Act, it is necessary that the orders passed by the Election Commission are to be communicated to the parties concerned without any delay.
36. In the event of receiving any such orders and if any person aggrieved from and out of such a decision and an order passed by the State Election Commission, then they are at liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 90 of the Act, for the purpose of redressing their grievances in respect of the election disputes.
37. At the request of this Court, the Additional Registrar/Secretary, State Election Commission appointed under Section 33-A of the Act is present before this Court and assisted the Court in respect of the details of elections.
38. In view of the discussions in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court is of an opinion that the following directions will meet the ends of justice with reference to the facts and circumstances and in respect of the allegations raised regarding the conduct of Elections for Co-operative Societies across the State in these batch of writ petitions:-
(i) All the aggrieved persons in respect of the allegations or otherwise of the conduct of Elections in the Co-operative societies across the State, are at liberty to submit their respective complaints/objections/applications and provide all relevant materials, if any available with them within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The aggrieved persons are at liberty to submit fresh complaints/objections/applications also.
(ii) The State Election Commission, on receipt of any such complaints/objections/applications or materials from any such aggrieved person, should consider the same by providing an opportunity to all the parties concerned and a personal hearing, if any such specific request is made and conduct enquiry in a free, fair and transparent manner and take a decision and pass orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of any such complaints/objections/applications.
(iii) After passing the final order in respect of the complaints/objections/applications in respect of each Co-operative Society, the State Election Commission should declare the Election results of the society.
(iv) Once, the Election results are declared in respect of a particular Co-operative Society, then, it is left open to the agrrieved persons to raise the dispute under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 before the competent authority.
(v) If any dispute under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is raised before the competent authority, such disputes raised should be adjudicated and disposed of by the competent authority under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act within a period of six months from the date of receipt of application regarding any dispute. However, the period of six months stipulated in this order is subject to the condition that the parties to the disputes should cooperate with the competent authority for the early disposal of these disputes. In the event of any non-cooperation by any one of the party, the competent authority under Section 90 is the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act is at liberty to record the same and conclude the adjudication and pass orders in the dispute without reference to the period of six months stipulated in this order.
39. With the above directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09-05-2018 Speaking Order Index : Yes. Internet : Yes. Svn Office to Note: Issue order copy by 10.5.2018. To 1.The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Election Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Election Commission, Kamadenu Co-op. Super Market Building, 273, Scheme Road, Subbarayan Nagar, Teynampet, Chennai-18. 3.Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), No.22, 4th Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-22. 4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Chennai Region/District Election Officer for Co-operative Housing Societies, Ramanathan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. 5.The Returning Officer for Pallavan Transport Corporation, Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., MDS/HSG/101, Pallavan Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. 6.The Secretary, Pallavan Transport Corporation Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., MDS/HSG/101, Pallavan Illam, Pallavan Salai, Chennai-2. S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. Svn
W.P.Nos.12033, 12037, 12038, 12056, 12059 to 12066, 12067, 12068, 12069, 12071 to 12074, 12077, 12078, 12079 to 12082, 12100, 12101, 12104, 12116, 12130, 12132, 12157, 12173, 12181, 12199, 12201 to 12205, 12209 to 12219, 12229, 12231, 12238, 12243, 12261, 12263, 12274, 12276 and 12280 of 2018 of 2018 09-05-2018