UNNIKRISHNA KURUP Vs. RAMUNNI NAIR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner is a shareholder of the Changaramkulam Service Cooperative Society and seeks to quash the action of the 1st respondent in respect of an election to the Board of Directors of the Society and further seeks a writ of mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from conducting further elections, on the basis of the nominations already accepted. The notices of elections to the Board of Directors of the Society were issued by the 4th respondent on 2 6 1967. Nominations were to be accepted from 3 6 1967 upto 5 6 1967; scrutiny of nominations was to be made on 7 6 1967; and the elections themselves were to be held on 18-6-1967. The petitioner filed his nomination in Ward I on 5-6-1967. His nomination was rejected on the ground that on the date of the nomination he was in arrear to the Society with certain sums due from him. This, according to the petitioner, was unjustified and illegal. Further, according to the petitioner, the nominations of the 4th, 6th and the 12th respondents to this writ petition werewrongly accepted, overlooking considerations and circumstances which ought to have disqualified them from election. The election results have been declared in a few of the wards and in the remaining ones the elections are to take place hereafter. It is at that stage that the petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised, by the counsel for the respondents that this writ petition is not maintainable and that according to the scheme and the provisions of the Madras Cooperative Societies Act 1932, the petitioner has other adequate alternative remedy for seeking appropriate redress. It is open to the petitioner to challenge the elections completed by arbitration proceedings under S 51 of the Act, as ruled by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in M. S. Madhava Rao v. D. V. K. Surya Rao ( AIR 1954 Mad. 103 ). The principle of that decision was extended even to a case of improper acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper by Jagadisan J. in P.X. Muthuvelappa Coundar v. The Deputy Registrar (1960-II-MLJ. 393). This extension of the principle was endorsed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in C. Lakshmiah Reddiar v. The Sriperumbudur Taluk Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd. (AIR R.. 1962 Mad. 169). These principles were in turn followed by Mr. Justice Mathew in Vasu Pillai v. The Registrar of Cooperative Society ( 1965 KLT 447 ). W. A. No. 105 of 1965 against the same was dismissed by a Division Bench.
(3.) No authority was cited, and nothing was said by the counsel for the petitioner to show that the alternative remedy of proceedings before the Registrar was not available in this case. The petitioner's counsel apprehended that the alternative remedy may prove ineffective, as no interim orders could be obtained pending arbitration proceedings There is nothing in the provisions of the statute or the rules, which forbids the grant of interim relief in appropriate cases.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.