PRAVEEN P.KOTTAKUZHI v. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION

SRI.C.M.NAZAR, SC (SCEC) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 6.2.2024 AND THE COURT ON 12.2.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Writ Appeal No.2245 of 2023 2 AMIT RAWAL & C.S.SUDHA, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- Writ Appeal No.2245 of 2023 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2024 J U D G M E N T C.S.Sudha, J. This intra court appeal has been filed by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.43307/2023 against the judgment dated 22/12/2023 by which the writ challenging the rejection of his nomination paper by the third respondent to the election to the Managing Committee of the Kerala State Labour Co-operative Federation Limited (Labourfed). The respondents herein are the respondents in the writ petition. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a Member and President of Trivandrum Labour Contract Co-operative Society (Co-operative Society). The Co- operative Society is a member of Labourfed, an Apex Society. There are 71 members of the Co-operative Society in Labourfed. The first respondent as per Ext.P2 dated 23.11.2023 notified election to 19 posts in the Managing Committee of Labourfed. The petitioner complying with all the formalities and conditions stated in Ext.P2 notification as well as in the relevant Rules, Writ Appeal No.2245 of 2023 3 submitted his nomination paper, a copy of which is Ext.P3, along with Ext.P3(a), a copy of the resolution dated 08/12/2023 of the Co-operative Society. After the scrutiny of the nomination paper, the petitioner was informed that the same had been rejected on account of non-submission of the declaration of the proposer and seconder along with the nomination paper. According to the petitioner, the said decision was intimated only orally and till date no written orders have been given. Though the nomination paper was in order, it was nevertheless rejected for a defect which is not mandated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (the Rules) or in Ext.P2. The rejection of the nomination, a politically motivated move, is totally arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles of law ; the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules. Hence the writ, seeking to declare the rejection of the nomination papers as illegal and arbitrary and for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner and to permit him to contest in the election.

3. Before the learned single Judge, the respondents contended that there was a specific condition in Ext.P2 notification to the effect that persons submitting their nominations shall also produce a certified copy of the decision taken by the Member Societies evidencing the nomination of Writ Appeal No.2245 of 2023 4 the Member. Such copy was to contain the signature of the Secretary or the President of the Member Society. This was not produced by the petitioner along with his nomination paper. It was also contended that the petitioner had not indicated the District from which he intended to contest. These were two major defects in the nomination paper submitted and hence the rejection.

4. The learned single Judge accepting the contentions of the respondents found the rejection of the nomination to be justified and dismissed the writ. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

6. Heard both sides. Clause (9) of Ext.P2 says that a copy of the decision taken by the Member Society evidencing the nomination of a delegate to the election to the Apex/Central/Federal Society, signed by two governing body Members as well as the Secretary or the President and attesting the signature of the delegate with the seal of the Member Society has to be submitted along with the nomination paper. The petitioner has no case that he has complied with the stipulation contained in Clause (9). His only case is that there is no such stipulation either in Ext.P2 or the relevant Act and Rules. Clause (9) of Ext.P2 goes against the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Compliance of Clause (9) was necessary and hence non Writ Appeal No.2245 of 2023 5 compliance of the same was certainly a ground to find the nomination paper to be defective.

7. Another argument advanced is that as per the Rules, the third respondent Returning Officer was bound to record reason(s) for the rejection of the nomination. Reference was also made to Rule 35A(6)(e)(ii) and (iv) to substantiate this argument. Rule 35A(6)(e)(i) says that on the day following the date fixed for the receipt of nomination papers, the Returning Officer shall take up the scrutiny of the nomination papers, on which date the candidate or his proposer or his seconder may be present at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers. Sub-clause (ii) says that the Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers and consider the objection which may be made by any person in respect of any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion and after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination. Sub-clause (iv) says that the Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same, as the case may be, and if the nomination paper is rejected, he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. In the light of the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that there has been non- compliance of the aforesaid Rules, as per order dated 04/01/2024 we called Writ Appeal No.2245 of 2023 6 for the entire records with the Returning Officer pursuant to which the file was produced. On going through the file we find that the scrutiny of the nomination papers was conducted on 18/12/2023 on which date the petitioner was very much present. The nomination paper of the petitioner is seen rejected for two reasons - (i) non-compliance of Clause (9) of Ext.A2 notification, (ii) the District from which the petitioner intended to contest had not been mentioned. These reasons are seen recorded on the reverse side of his nomination paper. Therefore the argument that there has been non-compliance of the relevant sub-clauses of Rule 35A, is apparently incorrect. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment calling for an interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal sans merit is dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/- Sd/- C.S.SUDHA JUDGE ami/