LORDAN Vs. REGISTRAR FISHERIES DIRECTORATE
LAWS(KER)-2003-4-43
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on April 11,2003

Lordan Appellant
VERSUS
Registrar Fisheries Directorate Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE Electoral Officer of the Kerala State Cooperative Election Commission issued notification dated 19.8.2002 (Ext. P1 in O.P. 27295/02) for holding election to the Managing Committee to the Kerala State Cooperative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (MATSYAFED). As per the notification, 15 members were to be elected, viz., 13 members from the general seat, one member from SC/ST, and one lady member. Election was scheduled to be held on 18.9.2002. Nominations had to be filed on 5.9.2002 and its scrutiny was scheduled on 6.9.2002. The Returning Officer, MATSYAFED, accepted the nomination papers and rejected some of the nomination papers on the ground that the societies represented by those persons who filed the nominations were defaulters or in default to the apex society - the MATSYAFED. The President of the Pulluvila Fisherman Development Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd., No. F(T) 28, Sri Lordan filed nomination as the nominee of the above society and his nomination was rejected. He filed O.P. No. 25795/02 on 10.9.2002. Sri. V.V. Saseendran, who was the former Chairman of the MATSYAFED filed nomination as the nominee representing the Maruthoorkulangara Kulasekharapuram Fisherman Development Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd., No. F(Q) 16, and his nomination also was rejected. Accordingly he filed O.P. No. 26244/2002 on 13.9.2002 challenging the above order. Sri. V.P. Babu, President of the Madappally Azhiyoor Fisherman Development Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd., No. E(K) 20, filed nomination representing the Society and his nomination also was rejected. Accordingly he filed O.P. 26399/02 on 16.9.2002 challenging the order.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, standing counsel for the Returning Officer, MATSYAFED and also the learned Government Pleader. The nominations filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer (the 3rd respondent in O.P. 25795/2002 and the 2nd respondent in the other 2 cases) on the ground that the Societies which nominated the petitioners were in default in making payments due to the apex society and as such the societies were disqualified to be members of the committee in view of the R.44 of the Cooperative Societies Rules (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules'). One of the main contentions put forward by the petitioners was that the societies which nominated them were not defaulters or in default in making payment of any amount due to the apex society. The learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P. 25795/02 submitted that the loans advanced to the Society and the amount due to the apex society had to be remitted in instalments and there was a schedule prescribing the mode and the time or date of payments and such payments had already been paid within the prescribed time and when such payments were made, they were not defaulters or in default in making the payments. Reliance was placed on Ext. P5, the DCB statement issued by the apex society as on August 2002. The same statement had been produced in the same O.P. by the MATSYAFED as Ext. R4(a). Ext. P5 document would reveal that the required percentage of payment was not achieved, so far as NCDC payments shown as items 1 to 3 were concerned, whereas the repayment in respect of NCDC SPL Asst., FDP 99, FDP 99 IS in item 4 to 6 were concerned the repayments were more than 100 percent and in FDP Co in item 7 it was 98.27%.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in O.P. 26244/02 also submitted that the Society which nominated the petitioner was not a defaulter or in default to the apex society. It was further submitted that the repayment schedule issued by the apex society itself would reveal that the repayment made was in excess of the schedule of payments. Ext. P2(4), DCB statement as on 31.8.2002 issued by the apex society would reveal that the percentage of repayment was exceeding 100 per cent. The other statement namely Ext. P3(2) would reveal that percentage of payment in respect of NCDC loans was below the required percentage.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.