Kerala High Court
B.Mohanachandran Nair vs The Andoorkonam Service Co-Operative ... on 6 July, 2012
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 22770 of 2013 (U)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
B.MOHANACHANDRAN NAIR,
FORMER PRESIDENT,
THE ANDOORKONAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3127,
ANDOORKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
RESIDING AT PANAYIL VEEDU, NEAR NAMBIYARKULAM,
KANIYAPURAM.P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE ANDOORKONAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 3127,
ANDOORKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 584.
2. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE,
ANDOORKONAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 3127,
ANDOORKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 584.
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.
R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
R3 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21-10-2013, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 22958/2013 AND
WPC.NO.23139/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
WP(C).No. 22770 of 2013 (U)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
---------------------------------------
P1- TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 6.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE KERALA
STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION.
P2- TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE
CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION.
P3- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.11.2012 IN WP(C)NO.24990/2012.
P4- TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY
OF 20.8.2013.
P5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P6- TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF THE REGISTERS AVAILABLE AND THE
PARTICULARS OF THE IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED IN EACH REGISTER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
------------------------------------------
R2(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E(1)1200/2012/SCEC DTD. 8/08/2012.
R2(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.19304/2012 DTD. 8/07/2013.
R2(C): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.NO.1286/2013 DTD. 12/09/2013.
R2(D): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 19/09/2013 SRI.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR.
R2(E): COPYOF THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY SRI.NAJEEBUDHEEN.H.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of October, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in all the Writ Petitions are members of the first respondent Bank and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22770 of 2013 is the former President. The election to the Managing Committee of the Bank is scheduled to 10.11.2013. The first respondent Bank is now managed by an Administrative Committee. The term of the earlier Committee expired on 18.09.2013 and by Ext.P1, an election was scheduled to be held on 26.08.2012. However, on a complaint that the 6B registers were not maintained properly, Ext.P2 order was issued by the State Co-operative Election Commission on 08.08.2012, cancelling the election scheduled as per Ext.P1. An Administrative Committee was placed in charge of the Bank.
W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 2 :
2. Ext.P2 was challenged by the then President in W.P.(c) No.19304 of 2012 and admittedly, an Administrative Committee was put in charge. When the matter came up for hearing, arguments were addressed assailing Ext.P2 and a learned Single Judge of this Court found the action of the Election Commission to be proper. This Court found that the question raised was whether the State Co-operative Election Commission has the power to pass the impugned order. This Court affirmed the powers of the Election Commission to pass such an order and it was specifically found that in passing Ext.P2, the Election Commission had not exceeded its jurisdiction and the adjournment of the election by Ext.P2 was hence upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.
3. The petitioner therein was before the Division Bench, in which, though the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed, the learned Judges found that the irregularities in the issue of Identity Cards, cannot be W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 3 : a ground for postponing the Election indefinitely and the Administrative Committee put in charge could not on that ground alone continue in office without conducting a proper election. As is revealed from Ext.R2(c) judgment, on the suggestion of the learned Judges of the Division Bench, a resolution was passed, by which, the present elections have been scheduled.
4. The grievance of the petitioners, raised in the present writ petitions, is against Ext.P4 notification which sought to rectify the 6B register by calling for applications for issuance of fresh identity cards. Ext.P4 dated 20.08.2013 indicated that any person who is entitled to vote as per the bye-laws, more specifically 'A' class members under Clause 5 of the bye-laws, would be entitled to surrender their old Identity Cards and seek for issuance of new Identity Cards, after producing sufficient evidence to prove their entitlement to be members of the Society. It was also stipulated that applications should be W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 4 : made within 30 days from the date of the notification.
5. The petitioners contend that there are about 11000 members of the Society and one hundred and eleven 6B registers and it is impossible to issue Identity Cards to all such members within the period stipulated in the publication. It is also pointed out that only some of the 111 registers were found to be improperly maintained and that those who had old Identity Cards also could be permitted to exercise their franchise in the election, if they were found to be included in the old registers. Such Identity Cards were issued validly and it would evidence the membership of such members as also the identity as is revealed from the photographs, is the contention.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners also takes me through the provisions which enable the issuance of Identity Cards namely 16A, 16B and 16C to contend that this procedure is to be resorted to at the time of admission of the members and that after W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 5 : admission of the members, there cannot be any fresh issuance of cards seeking fresh evidence with respect to the entitlement to hold membership. It is also submitted that Ext.P5 is an order passed permitting the Administrative Committee to issue fresh Identity Cards and replace the existing 6B registers issued on 09.01.2013 and the conduct of the Committee in issuing a notification after 7 months is clearly mala fide.
7. The learned counsel for the Administrative Committee however, contends that, though Ext.P5 order was passed in January since the writ petition challenging the cancellation of election was pending, the Administrative Committee did not take any action to proceed with the election. The writ petition was dismissed by order dated 08.07.2013 and immediately thereafter, publication was made calling for issuance of fresh Identity Cards, is the submission. It is also categorically submitted before this Court that even going W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 6 : by the Division Bench judgment produced as Ext.R2(c), the Administrative Committee is obliged to issue Identity Cards to the members up to and before 48 hours of the date of the election.
8. The contentions against the replacement of 6B registers do not at all survive since the cancellation itself was made on the ground of the 6B registers not having been maintained properly and this Court upheld the action of the Election Commission. It is also evident that it was when the appeal was pending that the Administrative Committee passed a resolution to conduct the present elections and evidently in obedience to the suggestion made by the Division Bench. However, the resolution for conducting election itself was passed on 08.09.2013. It is clear that the publication was made even before ie., on 20.08.2013, inviting applications for issuance of fresh Identity Cards. In the circumstances, the writ petitions having been dismissed only by Ext.R2(b), this Court is not W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 7 : convinced that there is any mala fide conduct on the part of the Administrative Committee, in making the publication in August, 2013.
9. It is very relevant that despite the publication having been made on 20.08.2013 and 30 days having been granted for making applications for issuance of fresh Identity Cards, none of the petitioners herein have approached the Administrative Committee for such issuance of Identity Cards. There is also no averment to the effect that the request for a fresh Identity Card after surrender of the old Identity Card, was declined by the Administrative Committee. All the writ petitions are seen filed before the date stipulated in Ext.P4 expired. Even today, none of the petitioners have thought it fit to make an application, especially based on the observations of the Division Bench in the earlier litigation.
10. In the context of there being absolutely no allegation raised against the Administrative Committee W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 8 : with respect to the issuance of the new cards and time being available even now for making such an application for issuance of new Identity Cards, this Court is not inclined to allow the reliefs sought for by the petitioners. The petitioners in fact seek that the Returning Officer be directed to look into the old and the new 6B Registers or the admission register maintained under Rule 29, to permit the holders of the old Identity Cards to exercise their franchise. The obvious difficulty in granting such permission is that admittedly the 6B registers were not maintained properly and in the event of a voters right being challenged it cannot be anticipated as to whether his details and photographs would be properly indicated in the 6B register for cross-reference. The writ petitions seeking for permission for the members to be allowed to exercise their franchise on the basis of the old Identity Cards, hence is found to be devoid of merit. However, it is made clear that the stipulation in Ext.P4 that the W.P.(C)Nos.22770, 22958 & 23139 of 2013 : 9 : applications made only within 30 days would be accepted is not liable to be sustained.
11. Even going by the directions of the Division Bench in Ext.R2(c), the Administrative Committee is obliged to issue Identity Cards to the members up to and before 48 hours of the date of the election. Hence, any application filed within that period ought to be considered by the Administrative Committee and fresh Identity Cards issued in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
ln