MINI JOSHI vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & ORS.

Petitioner is a candidate for election to the post of chairperson in Community Development Scheme (CDS). The apex body of the

''Kudumbashree Unit'' which consists of delegates from the Area Development Society (ADS), which forms the three tier structure of the

Kudumbashree. In the Corporation of Cochin there are three CDS namely East CDS, West CDS and South CDS. Election to the CDS was fixed

on 25.1.2018, on which day a meeting was called and all delegates were invited by the returning officer. After respective nomination of the

candidate, a secret ballot election was conducted. In the first round, the 7th respondent the opposite candidate of the petitioner declared elected

with a margin of one vote and before completing the proceedings a complaint was originated by the delegate from division number 74, contending

that the 7th respondent is a person holding a Directorship in Edappally Service Co-operative Bank which is a disqualification as per clause 18.17.2

of Ext.P1 election norms. The returning officer entertained the complaint and enquired about the truth or otherwise with a direction to the 7th

respondent to furnish necessary documents to discard the complaint. The 7th respondent failed to do so within the time granted. In that

circumstances, returning officer declared a fresh election in which petitioner secured 13 votes and the opponent received only 10 votes. Thereafter,

according to the petitioner minutes were drawn declaring that the petitioner is elected. Thereafter, a oath ceremony was fixed by the Corporation

on 26.1.2018. However, the oath administration of the petitioner is cancelled by the District Returning Officer abruptly without serving any notice

to the petitioner, on the ground that a complaint is received from the 7th respondent subsequently. Thereafter, the District Election Officer decided

the election dispute without issuing notice to the elected candidate, namely the petitioner and thereby ordered a conduct of fresh election without

any valid reason. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred Ext.P9 appeal before the 1st respondent, which is pending consideration. Petitioner

seeks early consideration of Ext.P9 and stay of the proceedings till such time the appeal is considered and decided by the District Collector.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

Since an appeal is pending consideration in accordance with the byelaw prescribed for the purpose, it is only appropriate that the statutory

authority is given the liberty to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P9 appeal

submitted by the petitioner and take a decision at the earliest possible time and at any rate within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested persons. Till such time, the election to the

chairperson of the east CDS shall be kept in abeyance. The other question with respect to the challenge made in Ext.P7 is all left open. The writ

petition is disposed of accordingly.