Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission issued notification dated 19.8.2002 (Ext. Pi in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (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 18.9.2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5.9.2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6.9.2002. 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 10.9.2002. Sri. V.V. Saseendran, who was the former Chairman of the MATSYAFED filed nomination as the nominee representing the Maruthoorkulangara Kulasekharapuram Fisherman Development Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd., No. F(Q) 16, and his nomination also was rejected. Accordingly he filed O.P. No. 26244/2002 on 13.9.2002 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 16.9.2002 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 the 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 DCB 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 NCDC payments shown as items 1 to 3 were concerned, whereas the repayment in respect of NCDC SPL Asst, FDP 99, FDP 99 IS in item 4 to 6 were concerned the repayments were more than 100 percent and in FDP Co in item 7 it was 98.27%.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. 26399/02 also submitted that the Society which nominated the petitioner as a candidate was not in default or a defaulter to the apex society. Ext. P3 is a certificate issued by the District Officer, MATSYAFED on 13.9.2002 stating that the primary society represented by the petitioner was not a defaulter in respect of any loan transaction between the apex society and the primary society except the amount due under NCDC project. This certificate would reveal that the primary society was not at all in default except the amounts advanced by the NCDC projects. Thus the evidence let in by the petitioners would reveal that the primary societies were not in default in paying the amount in accordance with the payment schedule to the apex society except the amount due as per the NCDC project.

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 NCDC programs and the recovery also had been made directly by the apex society. Exts. 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 up on 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.R 26244/02 is a notice issued by the MATSYAFED to the members demanding the recovery. In fact, in all the three cases NCDC 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.