RAVEENDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rejection of nomination of the appellant on the ground that he was a defaulter to the society and hence acquired disqualification under Rule 44(1)(c)(i) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (the 'Rules' for brevity) was impugned in the writ petition. Challenge against the said rejection did not find favour with the learned Single judge and the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved, appellant seeks our intervention.

(2.) Sri.Arjun Raghavan and Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant was only a surety in respect of 3 loans taken by his immediate family member on 17-10-2018, which were repayable only within 5 years. However, in order to disqualify the appellant, the administrative committee of the Society filed three arbitration cases in which awards were passed on 29-11-2019, copies of which were produced in the writ petition as Exts.P2, P3 and P4. Learned counsel also contended that immediately on obtaining copies of the awards, respective appeals were filed before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal under Section 82 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). It was also pointed out that along with the appeals, stay petitions were preferred in which the Tribunal issued an order staying execution of the award, and hence the appellant cannot be regarded as a defaulter under Rule 2(e) of the Rules. Learned counsel tried their best to impress upon this Court that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the stay order does not take away the nature of default of the appellant is legally untenable as according to him stay of execution of the award stands on the same footing as that of a stay of the award itself. On the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel attempted to persuade us to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) We also heard Smt.K.R.Deepa, learned Government Pleader, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, as well as Sri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Society.