Akbar M.K. vs The Registrar of Co-OP. Societies U.T. of Lakshadweep, Kavarathi, Kavarathi Islands, The Sub Divisional Officer, Kalpeni Islands(The Returning Officer Kalpeni Island Co-Operative Supply and Marketing Society) Ltd. No. Lma 2, Kalpeni Island U.T. of Lakshadweep and The Kalpeni Island Co-Operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd.

Siri Jagan, J.—The appellant herein is the petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 21778/2010. He is a member of the 3rd respondent co-operative society. The tenure of the present managing committee in office was over in the year 2008. However, the tenure was being extended from time to time by the 1st respondent. Ultimately, a notification was issued on 7.6.2010, scheduling the election to the managing committee, on 27.6.2010. In the election process, the returning officer rejected all the nominations received by him on 18.6.2010. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies intervened and directed the returning officer to take back all the nomination papers that were rejected and to conduct the election as scheduled. That decision of the Registrar was challenged by the appellant by filing W.P. (C). No. 19770/2010. That writ petition was allowed by Ext. P3 judgment dated 25.6.2010. In Ext. P3 judgment, this Court directed the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the returning officer not to proceed with the election pursuant to the proceedings, which was under challenge in the said writ petition. Instead, the Registrar was directed to issue a fresh election notification and a fresh schedule for the conduct of the election in accordance with law. It has also been ordered in Ext. P3 that the election to the managing committee of the society shall be conducted only in accordance with the fresh schedule to be so published as directed. Thereafter, by Ext. P7, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed the returning officer to publish a schedule of election under clause 6 of bye-law 17A of the society to conduct the election on the day fixed for the purpose. Pursuant thereto, Ext. R3(e) election notification was published. But that notification did not envisage publication of a fresh voters list calling for objections against the said voters list and settling the final voters list. The same contemplated the voters list already finalised during the earlier election, which was set aside as the voters list for the purpose of the election. The election schedule published started from the issue of nomination forms onwards. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the said procedure, seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct the election after preparing a fresh voters list in accordance with Ext. P3 bye-laws and to postpone the elections to some other day after completing the formalities for preparation of a fresh voters list in accordance with Ext. P8. The Society took the stand that since the voters list had already been finalised during the earlier election procedure and nobody filed any objections to the same, it was not necessary to publish the voters list afresh inviting objections and what Ext. P3 contemplated was publishing of a fresh schedule for the election itself starting from the receipt of nomination papers, which has been done in this case and, therefore, there was substantial compliance with the directions in Ext. P3 judgment. The learned Single Judge accepted the stand of the society and refused to interfere with the election process and dismissed the writ petition. That is under challenge in this writ appeal.

The contention of the appellant is that when this Court directed in Ext. P3 judgment that a fresh election notification and a fresh schedule for conduct of the election shall be published and the election shall be conducted only in accordance with the said schedule, it was incumbent on the respondents to start the entire election proceedings afresh starting from the publication of the voters list after inviting objections and finalising the voters list after considering the objections, if any, received, which has not been done in this case. It is submitted that because of non-publication of the voters list afresh, the appellant lost a valuable opportunity to file objections to the voters list. It appears that the appellant''s name does not appear in the voters list also. Therefore, according to the appellant, the election has not been ordered in accordance with the direction in Ext. P3 judgment and therefore, the entire election process is vitiated.

In answer, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent society would contend that what this Court directed in Ext. P3 judgment is only starting of the election process from the point of receiving nomination papers and this Court did not contemplate finalisation of the voters list also afresh. It is submitted that it would be an empty formality insofar as during the earlier notification, voters list was duly published inviting objections and no objections were received pursuant to the same. The appellant having not filed any objections during the earlier election notification, he is estopped from now contending that he was entitled to another opportunity to file objections to the voters list, is the contention raised. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the society, the election notification and the election proceedings were perfectly in accordance with Ext. P3 judgment and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is perfectly correct.

We have heard the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also.

The only question arising for consideration is as to whether the fresh election as per Ext. R3(e) was in accordance with the directions of this Court in Ext. P3 judgment. The operative portion of the said judgment quoted in the judgment impugned in this writ appeal reads thus:

It is not in dispute that the scrutiny of nomination papers was conducted on 18/6/2010 as per the schedule already notified. It is also not in dispute that the Returning Officer had after scrutiny, rejected all the nomination papers on the said date. Therefore, the schedule for the conduct of election as notified was already upset by the above proceedings. The said situation is not capable of being remedied by the issue of Ext. P7 and by the direction to conduct the rest of the procedures from the point at which the schedule was disrupted. The entire procedure for the conduct of election would have to be started afresh by the issue of another notification. Therefore, the proceedings Ext. P7 now issued by the 1st respondent is unsustainable.

In view of the above this writ petition is allowed. The 1st and 2nd respondents are directed not to proceed with the election pursuant to Ext. P7 proceedings issued by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall issue a fresh election notification and a fresh schedule for the conduct of the election in accordance with law. The election to the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent Society shall be conducted only in accordance with the said schedule. No costs.

(underlining supplied)

We are of opinion that the said direction contemplates a afresh election notification and a fresh schedule in accordance with the bye-laws of the society. In fact, that is what the Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed in Ext. P7 order, which is to publish a fresh schedule of election under Clause 6 of bye-law 17A of the society. It cannot be disputed that an election notification and election schedule should contain a date for publication of the voters list and a last day fixed for submitting objections to the voters list. This Court contemplated a fresh start of the election starting from the publication of the draft voters list and inviting objections to the same. That is clear from the portion of the judgment quoted above. This Court did not mince words while stating that the entire procedure for conduct of the election would have to be started afresh by issue of another notification. That was preceded by the sentence that the earlier defect, which was the disputed in that writ petition, could not have been remedied by the issue of Ext. P7 order in that writ petition and by the direction to conduct the rest of the procedures from the point at which the schedule was disrupted. Reading these two sentences together, it is abundantly clear that what this Court contemplated in Ext. P3 was a fresh election in all respects, which includes publication of a draft voters list and invitation of objections to the said voters list before finalising the same. Admittedly that has not been done in this case. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge, who directed continuation of the election procedure in accordance with Ext. R3 (e). That being so, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. Accordingly, we aside the same.

By virtue of the interim order of stay of election passed by this Court in this writ appeal, the election has not taken place and the dates for elections prescribed in Ext. R3(e) is long over. Therefore, the election cannot now be conducted in accordance with Ext. R3(e) schedule. Therefore, the only option left for us is to direct the respondents to see that a fresh election notification is published with a fresh schedule and conduct the election strictly in accordance with the said schedule. We make it clear that the same shall be after complying with the entire procedure for conduct of the election to the co-operative society as provided in the bye-laws of the society including a draft voters list inviting objections and finalising the same after considering the objections, if any, received. The election notification shall be published within one month. The election itself shall be completed within a period of two months therefrom.

The writ appeal is disposed of as above.