ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
These Writ Appeals are filed against the common judgment of learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C)Nos. 2696, 4434 and 2990 of 2013.
2. The Writ Petitions were filed challenging the election notification issued by the State Co-operative Election Commission scheduling election to the Board of Directors of the Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. Before the learned Single Judge, mainly three contentions were raised. The first contention was regarding the inclusion of members, who were alleged to have remitted the requisite share value after the last date stipulated for remitting the same. The second contention was whether the decision of the board of directors contained in Ext.P3 and numbered as 141(c) was a subsequent insertion. Both these contentions were declined to be accepted by the learned Single Judge.
3. The third contention urged was whether the reservation of that two seats for women without the approval of the general body was proper or not. The learned Single Judge found that reservation of the two seats for women and also reserving Thrissur and North Paravur wards for women were done by the Executive Committee and that it was against the provisions of clause 22 of the bylaws and on that ground held the same to be illegal. Thereafter the learned Single Judge set aside the election notification and directed that the election be conducted after carrying out amendments to the bylaws of the society. It is aggrieved by this common judgment these appeals are filed.
4. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the party respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the provisions of the Constitution (97th amendment) Act, 2011, provisions of Section 28-A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the decisions of this Court in Gopinathan Vs. Senior Inspector of Co-op. Societies [1986 KLT 1269] and Azeeskutty Vs. Returning Officer [2008(4) KLT 165] and contended that it was well within the powers of the Executive Committee to have reserved 2 seats for women and that therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the election process. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred us to the election notification, the resolution passed by the society amending the bylaws, the judgment of the Gujarath High Court invalidating Constitution (97th amendment) Act, the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.17672 of 2013, applying the principles laid down by the Gujarath High Court, the judgment in Udayakaran Vs. Ahammedkannu [2004(2) KLT 969] and also the judgments in Mathai Vs. State Co-operative Election Commission [2007(2) KLT 789] and in Janardhanan Vs. State Co-operative Election Commission [2009(1) KLT 1032] laying down principles similar to those laid down in Udayakaran's case (supra).
6. We have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.
7. The short question that arises for our consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in interfering with the election notification on the ground that the reservation of two wards for women which has been done by the executive committee without amendment to the bylaw as contemplated in clause 22 of the bylaws of the society. First of all, the election, insofar as the society is concerned, is held wardwise. The election notification, issued by the Election Commission shows that, among the various wards, Thrissur and North Paravur are reserved for women. This was based on the decision of the Executive Committee of the society. This shows that the decision of the Executive Committee was not merely a decision providing for reservation for women in terms of the provisions contained in Section 28 A of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act but also the exercise included the reservation of wards for women as well. Such a process, in terms of the provisions contained in clause 22 of the bylaws requires amendment of the bylaws, by placing the same before the general body of the society. This is what has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Udayakaran's case (supra) and in the subsequent judgments in Mathai Vs. State Co- operative Election Commission [2007(2) KLT 789] and in Janardhanan Vs. State Co-operative Election Commission [2009(1) KLT 1032].
8. As far as the judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant are concerned, those are not cases, where the decision of the Board of Directors of the society involved earmarking of wards as well. Therefore, the principles laid down in those judgments, which show that the action taken by the society was only for complying with the requirements of Section 28-A, cannot be applied to the facts of these cases.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in invalidating the election notification for the reason that reservation of the wards and the reservation of 2 seats could not have been done otherwise than by the general body of the society. We do not therefore find any infirmity in the judgment under appeals.
These Writ Appeals are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE skj