Judgment :- Heard learned Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent. 2. The election to the managing committee of the first respondent bank is scheduled to be held on 27-8-1994. The petitioner was a contesting candidate. He submitted his nomination on 4-8-1994. On scrutiny on 5-8-1994, the nomination of the petitioner was accepted. The complaint of the petitioner is that when the final list of contesting candidates was published, his name was not included in the said list. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that his name was deleted by the second respondent. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his nomination has been rejected by the second respondent on the ground that he was in default of certain amounts due to another co-operative society. According to the petitioner, even though certain amounts were due from him to Bhavana Nirmana Sahakarana Sangham E 708, Pothanicadu, the same was cleared on 5-8-1994 and he produced the receipt evidencing payment before the second respondent. According to the petitioner, since he has cleared off all dues to another co-operative society as on the date of scrutiny he cannot be declared as a defaulter nor can he be held to be in default. R.44 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (for short the rules ) dealing with disqualification of membership to Committees of Societies provides as follows: "44. Disqualification of membership of committees - (1) No member of the society shall be eligible for being elected, or appointed as a member of the committee of the society under S.28 if he: (a) (b) (c) is in default of the society or to any other society in respect of any loan or loans taken by him or loan in which he has stood surety, for such period, as is prescribed in the bye-laws of the society concerned or in any case for a period exceeding three months or is a defaulter to the society or to any other society. Going by the definition of 'defaulter' occurring in R.2(e) of the Rules, the petitioner cannot be held to be a defaulter for the reason that no decree has been passed against him making him liable as a defaulter. 4. Then, the next question to be considered is whether he is in default as contemplated under R.44(1)(c)(i). Going by the definition of 'defaulter' occurring in R.2(e) of the Rules, the petitioner cannot be held to be a defaulter for the reason that no decree has been passed against him making him liable as a defaulter. 4. Then, the next question to be considered is whether he is in default as contemplated under R.44(1)(c)(i). All that the rule says is that no member of the society shall be eligible to be elected if he is in default to the society. The rule is conspicuously absent as to the time at which the member is to be 'in default'. No provision, either in the Act or the Rule was brought to my notice which will disqualify the petitioner if he clears all arrears due to the bank as on the date of scrutiny of nomination. As already noticed, the petitioner has cleared the dues before the scrutiny of nomination on 5-8-1994. That apart, it must be noted that nomination paper of a candidate cannot be rejected on hyper technical grounds and no rejection of nominations can be made unless the defect noticed is substantial or goes to the root of the matter. 5. In the above view, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is neither a defaulter nor is he in default to the society and hence rejection of his nomination paper cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, this original petition is allowed and there will be a direction to the second respondent returning officer to accept the nomination paper submitted by the petitioner and to allow him to contest the election to the first respondent bank scheduled to be held on 27-8-1994. The Original Petition is allowed as above.