Sunitha V.C. and K.P.Chacko vs The Returning Officer, The State of Co-operative Election and The Nediyanga Service Co-operative Bank

P.N. Ravindran, J.—Ext. P9, the list of candidates who have submitted valid nominations for election to the managing committee of the third Respondent society, published by the first Respondent returning officer is under challenge in this writ petition. The Petitioners contend that rejection of their nominations at the time of scrutiny and the consequential non-inclusion of their names in Ext.P9 list are arbitrary and illegal. Relying on Ext.P2 Government order dated 12.11.2009, it is contended that though the Petitioners have availed loans from the third Respondent society and have not repaid the loans, they are entitled to full waiver of the loans in view of Ext.P2 Government order, that their names are included in the list of persons eligible for loan waiver forwarded by the third Respondent bank to Government and therefore as the Petitioners are eligible for full loan waiver, they cannot be said to be in default.

It is evident from Exts.P6 and P8 that demand notices were issued to the Petitioners on 23.12.2005 and 22.3.2002 respectively demanding repayment of the loan. Later, registered noticed were sent on 15.6.2006 and 18.7.2002 demanding repayment of the loan. In the case of the second Petitioner, an award has also been passed and proceedings have been initiated to execute the award. It is thus evident that notwithstanding the demands made years back, the Petitioners have not cleared the loans. Ext.P2 Government order was issued only on 12.11.2009, and as on the said date, the Petitioners were admittedly in default. Even on the dates on which nominations were submitted and taken up for scrutiny, the Petitioners were in default. It is not in dispute that as matters now obtain, the Government have not taken over and discharged the liability of the Petitioners to the third Respondent bank. The returning officer was not in my opinion bound to wait till the Government accepts the recommendations of the third Respondent bank to extend the benefit of full loan waiver to the Petitioners. He was only bound to consider whether on the date of scrutiny, the Petitioners were in default. As the Petitioners'' liability subsists even today, the rejection of their nominations on the ground that they are in default cannot be said to be illegal. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.