Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT THONGALVILAME KARA versus THE RETURNING OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT THONGALVILAME KARA v. THE RETURNING OFFICER - WP(C) No. 11929 of 2007(T) [2007] RD-KL 7333 (9 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11929 of 2007(T)

1. VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT THONGALVILAME KARA,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE RETURNING OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. NELLIMOODU SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.

3. G.BABU, TARA KUMARAVILA,

4. M.R.VIJAYADAS, PETNAVILASAM,

5. M.PONNAYYAN, KOTTAKUZHI VEEDU,

For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :09/04/2007

O R D E R

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

WP(C) No. 11929 of 2007 T

Dated, this the 9th day of April, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5.

2. The allegation in the petition is that the 1st respondent has not considered disqualification of respondents 3 to 5 to contest for the election based on Ext.P1 order in appeal issued by Government against order under Sec. 68 of the Co-operative Societies Act, whereby surcharge is levied on respondents 3 to 5. Ext.P1 disqualification applies to other members also. The learned Government Pleader reported that 1st respondent was unaware of Ext.P1 and petitioner also did provide copy of it at the time of scrutiny of nominations. However, I find there was already judgment in W.P.(C)No. 34725/2004, whereunder this Court quashed notice proposing to disqualify the present committee members based on the original order, against which W.P.(C)No. 11929/2007 -Page numbers- appeal was pending at that time. In fact this Court allowed the WP(C) only because the order under Sec. 68 had not attained finality and the matter was pending in appeal. Therefore, obviously proceedings under Sec. 68 against respondents 3 to 5 and others were on record when nomination papers were scrutinised by 1st respondent. It was the duty of the 1st respondent while scrutiny of nominations to find out the result of appeal, particularly when it was referred in the earlier judgment. In the circumstance, I dispose of the WP(C) directing the 1st respondent to defer the election for the minimum period required and hold it at the earliest after verifying Ext.P1 and after deciding on the disqualification of respondents 3 to 5 and others involved, after hearing the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 and any other person affected. Question of disqualification shall be considered in accordance with Rules after hearing all the parties prior to finalization of list of candidates. Election will be conducted at the earliest after finalization of eligibility as above. This WP(C) is disposed of as above.

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

jg


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.