Kerala Co-Op Societies Rules | Person Proposing Nomination Of Another Candidate Not Disqualified From Contesting Elections: High Court
The Kerala High Court not too long ago held that there isn’t a provision underneath the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules that disqualified an individual from contesting in an election merely as a result of he proposed the nomination of one other candidate in the identical constituency.
The judgment was rendered by Justice Ok. Babu, who was contemplating a writ petition difficult the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature in election to the APCOS Employees Co-operative Society Ltd No. T.1323 at Plamoottukada, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
The petitioner had filed nomination in Constituency B2 and his nomination was proposed by M. Satheeshkumar and seconded by one other member of the society. M. Satheeshkumar additionally filed his nomination and the petitioner seconded it. After scrutiny of the checklist of candidates, the names of the petitioner and M. Satheeshkumar had been omitted from the printed checklist.
The petitioner claimed that the rejection of his candidate was unlawful and got here earlier than the High Court for a course to the Returning Officer (respondent No. 3) for accepting his title.
Respondent no. 3 contended that it’s not permissible for a proposer to contest within the elections to the identical constituency for a similar submit. It was additionally submitted that the petitioner has another treatment underneath Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act by preferring an election petition.
The Court seemed into Rule 129 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, which offers with the election of members. It noticed:
“The submission is that a candidate who files nomination would stand disqualified to contest the election, if he proposes the nomination of another candidate to the same constituency. The relevant Rule does not contain any such provision. There are no indications in the relevant Rules that disqualifies a candidate from contesting an election on the ground that he proposed the nomination of another candidate in the same constituency. There is also no indication that a person who proposes or seconds nomination of another person would become disqualified from contesting the election.”
Therefore, it went on to carry that the rejection of nomination of the petitioner was unlawful.
Next, the Court seemed into the scope of judicial intervention in election mattes by invoking writ jurisdiction. It referred to the choices in Sri.Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Mharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], Election Commission v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216], Mercy George v. The Kerala State Co- operative Election Commission [2018 (1) KLT 70] to achieve the discovering that writ courts can intervene to smoothen the progress of election and that there isn’t a have to adduce elaborate oral or documentary proof when the rejection of nomination paper is unlawful.
Thus, it allowed the writ petition and directed the threerd respondent to simply accept the nomination of the petitioner.
Case No: WP(C) No. 33733 of 2025
Case Title: R. Suresh Babu v. State Co-operative Election Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
Counsel for the petitioner: P.V. Baby, Vineeth P. Baby
Counsel for the respondents: Kaveri S. Thampi
