The Kerala High Court has clarified that under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, a member who proposes another candidate’s nomination in the same constituency is not disqualified from contesting the election themselves. This ruling arose from a writ petition filed by a candidate challenging the rejection of his nomination for the APCOS Employees Co-operative Society Ltd No. T.1323, located at Plamoottukada, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner contended that the Returning Officer had unlawfully omitted his name from the final list of candidates, which effectively prevented him from participating in the election.
In the matter before the Court, the petitioner filed his nomination for Constituency B2. His nomination was proposed by M. Satheeshkumar and seconded by another member. At the same time, Satheeshkumar filed his own nomination, for which the petitioner acted as a seconder. After scrutiny of nominations, both the petitioner and Satheeshkumar were omitted from the final list of candidates. The petitioner asserted that his omission was contrary to the rules governing cooperative society elections and sought a writ directing the Returning Officer to accept his nomination.
The Returning Officer defended the omission on the ground that a person who acts as a proposer of a nomination in the same constituency is barred from contesting for the same post. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, which provides for filing an election petition in cases of disputes arising out of the conduct of elections.
Upon consideration, the High Court examined Rule 129 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, which deals with the election of members. The Court found that the Rules did not contain any provision disqualifying a candidate merely for proposing or seconding another candidate’s nomination in the same constituency. The Court emphasized that the procedural framework is designed to ensure fair participation in cooperative society elections and that undue restrictions on the rights of members to contest elections must be avoided.
In its judgment, the Court held that proposing or seconding another candidate does not render a person ineligible to contest elections. The Court noted that allowing the Returning Officer to reject a candidate on this basis would be inconsistent with the principles of fairness and inclusivity embedded in the cooperative society election framework. Consequently, the Court directed the Returning Officer to accept the petitioner’s nomination and include his name in the list of candidates for the upcoming election.
This decision reinforces the principle that election rules in cooperative societies must be interpreted in a manner that promotes equitable participation of all members. It clarifies that procedural actions such as proposing or seconding a candidate cannot be used to bar a member from exercising their fundamental right to contest elections. The ruling ensures that members’ rights are protected and that election authorities apply the rules consistently and in line with statutory intent. It serves as a significant precedent in cooperative society election law, highlighting the importance of fair and transparent conduct of elections while safeguarding the participatory rights of society members.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.