Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19th August, 2002 (Ext.Pl in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18th September, 2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5th September, 2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6th September, 2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society-the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No. F(T) 28 Sri. Lordan filed nomination as the nominee of the above society and his nomination was rejected. He filed O.P. No. 25795/02 on 10th September, 2002. Sri. V.V. Saseendran, who was the former Chairman of the MATSYAFED filed nomination as the nominee representing the Maruthoorkulangara Kulasekharapuram Fisherman Development Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd. No. F(Q) 16, and his nomination also was rejected. Accordingly he filed O.P. No. 26244/2002 on 13th September, 2002 challenging the above order. Sri. V.P. Babu, President of the Madappally Azhiyoor Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. No. E(K) 20, filed nomination representing the Society and his nomination also was rejected. Accordingly he filed O.P. 26399/02 on 16th September, 2002 challenging the order.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Standing Counsel for the Returning Officer, MATSYAFED and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The nominations filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer (the 3rd respondent in O.P. 25795/2002 and the 2nd respondent in the other 2 cases) on the ground that the societies which nominated the petitioners were in default in making payments due to the apex society and as such the societies were disqualified to be members of the committee in view of Rule 44 of the Co-operative Societies Rules (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). One of the main contentions put forward by the petitioners was that the societies which nominated them were not defaulters or in default in making payment of any amount due to the apex society. The learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P. 25795/02 submitted that the loans advanced to the Society and the amount due to the apex society had to be remitted in instalments and there was a schedule prescribing the mode and the time or date of payments and such payments had already been paid within the prescribed time and when such payments were made, they were not defaulters or in default in making the payments. Reliance was placed on Ext.P5, the D.C.B. statement issued by the apex society as on August, 2002. The same statement had been produced in the same O.P. by the MATSYAFED as Ext.R4(a). Ext.P5 document would reveal that the required percentage of payment was not achieved, so far as N.C.D.C. payments shown as items 1 to 3 were concerned, whereas the repayment in respect of N.C.D.C. SPL ASST., FDP 99, FDP 99 IS in item 4 to 6 were concerned the repayments were more than 100 per cent and in FDP Co. in item 7 it was 98.27 per cent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the apex society had advanced loans to the members of the primary society directly under N.C.D.C. programmes and the recovery also had been made directly by the apex society. Ext.R4(b) (Pages 11, 12 and 13) in O.P. 25795/2002 are copies of the applications made by the members of the primary society directly before the apex society and those applications were produced by the apex society itself. Ext.R4(b) (pages 1 to 10) was an agreement executed by the members of the society, in fact in favour of the apex society. In the above agreement the apex society as well as the primary society were mentioned as party No. 1 and the members who obtained the loan were shown as party No. 2. It is true that a liability was cast upon the primary society to collect the amount from the members and to remit the same before the apex society. But the documents would reveal that coercive steps for recovery had been taken by the apex society itself. Ext.P5(3) in O.P. 26244/02 is a notice issued by the MATSYAFED to the members demanding the recovery. In fact, in all the three cases N.C.D.C. loans were given by the MATSYAFED to the members directly by executing similar agreements wherein the MATSYAFED and the primary societies were mentioned as party No. 1 and the members (as a group) as party No. 2.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the Returning Officer was not expected to make a roaming enquiry into the liability of the Societies before nominations are rejected and he need only consider the records available. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Returning Officer would reveal that the Returning Officer called for a statement from the MATSYAFED and accordingly the MATSYAFED furnished a statement showing the list of defaulters. Accordingly on the basis of the above statement, the nominations of the petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer. The counter-affidavit filed by the Returning Officer would make it clear that he did not make any enquiry or any verification of the records before rejecting the nominations. The learned counsel for the Returning Officer was placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 169, 170, 208 and 211 of 2000 dated, 22nd October, 2001 wherein it was held: