CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 09 KL CK 0002

Aneesh vs State Co Operative Election Commission

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 4 September 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sathish Ninan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 29055 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 385 words

Sathish Ninan, J

1.

Election to the third respondent Society is notified to be held on 09.09.2023. The nomination of the petitioner was rejected for the reason that he is faced with an order of surcharge under Section 68(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act (Ext.P3 order). The same is under challenge in this writ petition.

2.

Heard Sri.Swathi Kumar B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.C.M.Nazar, learned Standing Counsel.

3.

Rule 44(l) of the Co-operative Societies Rules disqualifies a member of the Society who is surcharged under Section 68 of the Act, to be a member of the Managing Committee of the Society.

4.

That an order of surcharge was passed against the petitioner is not in dispute. The contention of the petitioner is that, the order of surcharge is stayed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3952/2023 and that the order of stay is still in force. Therefore, the disqualification is not attracted, it is contended.

5.

As is evident from Section 68, an order of surcharge is personal in nature. An order of surcharge is for payment of money. The order of surcharge is based on a finding with regard to payments made contrary to the Acts, Rules or Bye-laws or having caused any loss or damage to the assets of the Society in the manner as stated in the Section. Such a finding would vary as against the different persons sought to be surcharged.

6.

Though an order of surcharge was passed against the petitioner, he has not challenged the same. He is not the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3952/2023. W.P.(C) No.3952/2023 is filed by yet another person against whom an order of surcharge was passed. Even if the order of surcharge against the said writ petitioner is interfered with, that need not necessarily result in interfering with the order against the petitioner. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of surcharge, it was for him to have the same challenged and sought for stay. Having not chosen to do so, it is not open for him to take shelter under an order of stay granted to another person who was surcharged. The order of surcharge remains operative in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Resultantly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.