The petitioner is aggrieved with the interdiction of election made by the Election Commission as per Ext.P4. Admittedly, an election was notified pursuant to a valid resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society. The election notification is seen at Ext.P2 which scheduled the elections on 23.11.2014. However, on 12.11.2014, when all the proceedings were over, the Election Commission had cancelled the said election by Ext.P4, for reason of two complaints received by the Election Commission which indicated that, the voters list was not drawn up properly. 2. A report is said to have been called for from the Electoral Officer. The Electoral Officer submitted a report stating that, despite finalization of voters list, the objection could not be considered effectively since no address was shown in the voters list handed over by the Managing Committee to the Electoral Officer.
3. The voters list is produced at Ext.P6.
The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, the voters list specifies the details as prescribed under the Rules insofar as the list having disclosed the membership number, name of the member, name of the father or husband and as the 4th item, the house name. This would be in compliance of the prescription, is the contention. It is also contended by the learned Senior counsel that, the area of operation being confined to one post office, there was no requirement to show the place name.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation), however, specifically draws the attention of this Court to sub-rule (4) of Rule 35A of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (Kerala) (for short 'the Rules'). The learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the address having not been shown in Ext.P6, the opportunity for filing objections against the draft voters list was rendered nugatory. It was hence, complaints were filed before the Election Commission which authority, has the over all supervision of the election as per Section 28B of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (Kerala). The Election Commission has interdicted the election only in the circumstances of the voters list being not drawn up as prescribed under the Rules, is the contention.
5. It is not disputed that the address of each member as also the name of the members' father or husband, is a mandatory requirement in the voters list. Evidently, a mere perusal of Ext.P6 would indicate that the voters list did not show the complete address of any of the members, and house name alone has been indicated. This Court is not convinced that the mere indication of the house name would facilitate identification of the person included in the voters list for reason of the area of operation being confined to one single post office. A bare reading of Ext.P6 would indicate that there are many members who have the same house name. It is also found from Ext.P6 that the name of the husband or father has not been indicated in the case of many of the persons included in the voters list. In such circumstances, this Court cannot discount the report of the Electoral Officer, insofar as the statement that the opportunity for filing objections has been rendered nugatory.
6. The mandate for showing details of the members in the voters list is for the identification of the members. The opportunity to object to the voters list is to ensure that only those members who are entitled to exercise franchise and who have a valid membership alone are allowed to participate in the election. Identification of the members from the voters list is the essence of such prescription. The mere fact that the earlier Managing Committees having prepared the voters list, only in this manner, over the years cannot be a reason to ignore a patent illegality; when it is pointed out.
7. The learned Senior counsel would contend that neither in the impleading petition nor in the statement of the Government, an objection before the Electoral Officer is said to have been filed. In fact, in the impleading petition a statement has been made that the deponents' objections had been unattended and hence a complaint was preferred before the Co- operative Election Commission. In any event, the specific contention taken up before the State Co-operative Election Commission is that the voters list was not prepared in accordance with the specifications in sub-rule (4) of Rule 35A of the Rules.
8. As was indicated earlier, a bare reading of Ext.P6 would indicate that the said contention is correct, insofar as the address having not been shown, with respect to any of the members and many of the members having been not identified with reference to their fathers' or husbands' name. The publication of the draft voters list and the process of finalization after hearing the objections, are intended only to see whether a person included in the draft voters list and identified properly is, in fact, eligible to exercise the franchise. The said right would be rendered nugatory if identification is not possible as per the voters list. This Court does not find any infirmity in the Election Commission having interfered with the election; after looking at Ext.P6.
The writ petition would stand dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. It is made clear that, even if an Administrator or an Administrative Committee is appointed, expeditious steps shall be taken to conduct the election.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs