Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 396 (KER)

Peter v. Aravindakshan

1998-08-19

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

body1998
Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of Election Petition, A.R.C. No. 1819 of 1996 by the Arbitrator holding that the petitioners have not affixed necessary court fees for entertaining the election dispute. 2. Election Petition dated 19.7.1996 was filed by six petitioners before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam, who vide Ext. PI order dated 7.8.1996, in exercise of the powers under S.70(1)(c) of the Act, appointed the Assistant Registrar (General), Kanayannur to hear and dispose of the matter. 3. Arbitration case was tiled against the election held on 23.9.1996 in the Thevara Urban Co-operative Society, in which respondents 1 to 5 got elected. Petitioners wanted a declaration that the election held on 23.9.1996 is void and illegal and that petitioners should be declared to have been elected in the place of respondents 1 to 5. Before the Arbitrator a preliminary objection was raised by the third respondent contending that Arbitration Case is not liable to be entertained since the requisite court fees have not been remitted by the petitioners. According to third respondent and others, petitioners ought to have remitted Rs. 500/- each towards fee as per R.67(7)(a)(I) and also court fee of Rs. 12/-. Instead, the petitioners have jointly paid only an amount of Rs. 500/- as fee and Rs. 2/- towards court fee. Further respondents 1 to 5 have also raised another contention that Arbitration Petition was not accompanied by the records relied on by the petitioners and only a list of relevant documents relied on by the petitioners was produced. 4. Petitioners filed a statement to the preliminary objection stating that as per R.67(7)(a)(I) of the Rules, they need pay only Rs. 500/- to decide the dispute in the Election Petition. According to petitioners, all the petitioners need not independently pay Rs. 500/- for deciding the dispute. Further it was also stated that R.67(7) is intended only to subsequent petitions and applications which are being presented regarding interlocutory prayers. Therefore, there is no necessity of affixing stamp of Rs. 2/- by way of court fee in an Election Petition. 5. Contentions raised by the petitioners were repelled by the arbitrator. Arbitrator rejected the petition holding that sufficient court fee has not been affixed by the' petitioners. 6. Therefore, there is no necessity of affixing stamp of Rs. 2/- by way of court fee in an Election Petition. 5. Contentions raised by the petitioners were repelled by the arbitrator. Arbitrator rejected the petition holding that sufficient court fee has not been affixed by the' petitioners. 6. The short question that has come up for consideration in this Case is whether the election petition filed by the petitioners is maintainable or not due to deficiency of court fee. 7. I am of the view that this question has already been answered by a learned single judge of this Court in Gopalakrishna Panickerv, State of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT 495. This Court took the view that it has been the settled law that formalities relating to election petitions have to be complied with strictly, and that any deviation therefrom will prove fatal to the very maintainability of the petition itself. This is because the right to challenge an election is not a common law right, but a special right which has to be specifically conferred by statute and therefore, the terms of of the statute conferring the right have to be complied with before the petition can be maintained and entertained. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Charan Lai Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhat, AIR 1973 SC 2464, and in Satya Narain v. Dhuja Ram, AIR 1974 SC 1185, the Court highlighted the public interest which requires an expeditious culmination of the election process. 8. The relevant rule, which is applicable to this case, is extracted below: "67. Reference of disputes, payment of expense and decisions on disputes:-(7)(a) The fees for deciding the dispute shall be as follows: I. Monetary disputes:-Forty paise for claims of every Rs. 10 or part thereof, subject to a minimum of Rs. 10 and a maximum of Rs. 500/ II. Non-monetary disputes For cases filed by the employees of the society Rs. 500/--(ii) In other cases Rs. 500/ Note:- The fees shall be paid in advance into the nearest Govemment Treasury. All petitions and applications presented under this Rule shall bear court fee stamps as required under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (10 of 1960)." It is evident from the above mentioned rule, in the case of non monetary disputes, Rs. 500 is the fees and that fee has to be paid in advance in the nearest Government Treasury. 500 is the fees and that fee has to be paid in advance in the nearest Government Treasury. All petitions and applications presented under the Rule shall bear court fee stamps as required under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. Therefore, over and above Rs. 500/-- a person who 9. A Division Bench of this Court in Nandakumar v. Arbitrator, 1996 (2) KLT 324 upheld the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Gopalakrishna Panicker's case (supra) with regard to payment of fees, and production of receipted chalan for entertaining the election petition. Division Bench held as follows: "The learned single judge in Gopalakrishna Panicker's case 1990 (2) KLT 495) in interpreting R.67 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules held that the mandatory rule therein is to produce the document on which the dispute is based as well as receipted chalan to evidence payment of the fees fixed under clause (a) of sub-r.(7) for deciding the dispute along with the petition. The interpretation of the expression list of relevant records' did not arise for consideration directly in that case. The relevant portion of the rule reads as follows: The application shall be accompanied by a list of relevant records on which the dispute is based and a receipted chalan to evidence payment of the fees fixed under clause (a) of sub-r.(7) for deciding the dispute'. It contains two clauses. The first clause relates to the submission of the list of 'relevant records on which the dispute is based' and the second part is 'receipted chalan to evidence payment of the fees'. Both the clauses are to be read disjunctively inasmuch as a list of relevant records does not mean the documents as such. No rule of the Co-operative Societies Rules lays down that the petitioner is required to file all the documents or records along with the petition failing which the petition is liable to be rejected. So far as the mandatory rule in the other part of the aforesaid rule, namely, the production of a receipted chalan, is concerned there can be no doubt that without the accompaniment of a chalan in evidence of payment of fees along with the petition, the same cannot be entertained like a suit. So far as the mandatory rule in the other part of the aforesaid rule, namely, the production of a receipted chalan, is concerned there can be no doubt that without the accompaniment of a chalan in evidence of payment of fees along with the petition, the same cannot be entertained like a suit. The interpretation by the learned single judge in Gopalakrishna Panicker's case (1990 (2) KLT 495) with regard to the mandatory requirement of production of a chalan appears to be correct. But the interpretation of the rule regarding the requirement of production of the document or record along with the petition does not appear to be correct". In view of the finding of the Division Bench, it is evident that the payment of requisite court fees along with the Election Petition is a mandatory requirement. 10. I am not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioners that they need together pay only Rs. 500/- as fees. What petitioners pray for is not merely setting aside election and therefore, resolving the dispute, but they wanted them to be declared elected in the place of respondents 1 to 5. Therefore, all the petitioners are bound to pay Rs. 500/- each. Apart from that, they have to affix court fee stamps of Rs. 2/-each. Even if the petitioners are filing the Election Petition collectively, they are bound to pay fees and court fees as mentioned above. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Arbitrator has rightly rejected the petition filed by the petitioners. Consequently, this Writ Petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.