N.K. Vijayan vs Returing Officer/Unit Inspector Kuthiyathode Unit Office of The Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies Cherthala and The Thuravoor Co-operative Bank Ltd.

K. Surendra Mohan, J.—The grievance of the petitioner herein is that the nomination submitted by him for contesting in the election to the Managing Committee of the second respondent Co- operative Bank has been rejected. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste. The election to the Managing Committee of the second respondent Bank is proposed to be held on 17.6.2012.Pursuant to the election notification, the petitioner submitted two sets of nomination papers before the first respondent supported by all necessary documents. It is the case of the petitioner that his nominations were supported by attested copies of Ext.P1. However, his nominations have been rejected for the reason that only attested copies were produced. According to the petitioner, the above action is an abuse of the authority conferred on the first respondent.

When the writ petition came up for admission on 8.6.2012, the Special Government Pleader Sri.D.Somasundaram, who appeared for the first respondent was directed to produce in Court the original nomination papers submitted by the petitioner together with the supporting documents. Accordingly, the nomination papers as well as the order rejecting the petitioner''s nomination papers have been made available to me.

I have heard Sri.R.Harikrishnan, who appears for the petitioner as well as Sri.D.Somasundaram, who appears for the first respondent.

According to the counsel for the petitioner, Rule 35 A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (''the Rules'' for short) does not stipulate that the original of the caste certificate should be produced along with the nomination paper. Therefore, the action of the first respondent in rejecting the petitioner''s nomination paper for the reason that the original caste certificate had not been produced along with the nomination paper is submitted to be without any justification whatsoever. It is also contended that though the petitioner had requested for being issued with an order stating the reasons for the rejection of his nomination papers, no such order was supplied by the first respondent. Since the petitioner is in possession of the original of his caste certificate, the counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be given a chance to produce the same before the first respondent and be given a chance of having his nomination papers scrutinized afresh. The above submission is stoutly opposed by the Spl.Govt.Pleader, who appears for the first respondent. He points out that since the petitioner had not produced the original within the time that was granted to him to produce the same, there is no justification for providing any further opportunity to produce the original. It is also pointed out that the election schedule that was published much earlier, stipulates the date of scrutiny and the date of publication of the final list of candidates, besides the date of polling, date of declaration of results, etc. which cannot be altered in the absence of compelling circumstances to do so.

I have considered the rival contentions anxiously. The nomination papers produced by the petitioner show that they were accompanied by only photostat copies of a caste certificate dated 29.5.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Cherthala. The same is seen attested by the Secretary of the second respondent society. Therefore, the contention that the nomination papers of the petitioner were accompanied by attested copies of his caste certificate is not true.

The order of the first respondent rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner shows that the petitioner had been directed to produce the original of the caste certificate dated 29.5.2012 issued by the Tahsildar, Cherthala and time had been given to him for the purpose, upto the date of the scrutiny of the nomination papers. But he had not produced the same within the time that was granted. It is for the said reason that the nomination papers submitted by the petitioner had been rejected. I do not find any infirmity in the procedure that has been adopted. It is true that the Rules do not contain any specific stipulation that the nomination papers should be accompanied by a caste certificate where the proposed candidates want to contest to a post reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. However, it was certainly incumbent upon the petitioner to have produced the original of the caste certificate in support of his claim for reservation, so as to convince the first respondent of his caste status. In the present case, it is seen that time for production of the original was given to him upto the date of scrutiny and that he had not produced the original within the stipulated time. As rightly pointed out by the Spl.Govt.Pleader an election schedule had been published well in advance, specifying the dates of the various events that lead up to the election. The same is not liable to be interfered with or altered in the absence of any compelling circumstances. I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to a further chance to produce his caste certificate and to have a fresh scrutiny of his nomination papers, as contended. If the petitioner has any further grievance regarding the rejection of his nomination papers, his remedy is to challenge the election itself in a properly framed election petition.

With the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed.