Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1794 (MAD)

C. K. Mahadevan v. Election Commissioner Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Kamadenu Co-operative Super Market, Teynampet

2013-04-26

K.VENKATARAMAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been filed for declaration declaring the action of the 4th respondent by deferring/removing the 628 old members of the Kanchipuram Arinjar Anna Silk Handloom Weaver’s Co-operative Production and Sale Society Ltd., KH-1, in the final voter’s list, from exercising their franchise in the Co-operative election to be held on 27-04-2013 subsequent days to the 4th society as annexed with this petition, as unconstitutional and null and void. 2. Though a lengthy affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, the sum and substance of the affidavit is that there are 628 old members of Kanchipuram Arinjar Anna Silk Handloom Weaver’s Co-operative Production and Sale Society Ltd. and in the final list, they have not been shown as eligible voters to exercise their franchise in the cooperative election to be held on 27-04-2013. 3. On institutions, the learned Additional Advocate General reports that the 628 members have been disqualified and hence they have not been shown in the list. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the 628 members were old members of the society in question and there is no question of disqualifying them and hence the allegation that they have been disqualified cannot be accepted at all. He has also relied on Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1996 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) wherein it speaks of disqualification for members of the society. As per the said provision no person shall be eligible for admission as member of a Society on the reasons therein. As far as the Society in question is concerned, 628 members are eligible to vote. Further, he has drawn my attention to Rule 51(A) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 (hereinafter called ‘the Rules’) and submitted that the members who are not otherwise disqualified to vote shall be eligible to vote. In the present case on hand, since 628 members were not otherwise disqualified, they shall be allowed to vote. The petitioner, who has filed a nomination paper is entitled to canvass that if the 628 members were not allowed to vote, it will affect his election. 5. On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that 628 members were disqualified to vote and hence they cannot be allowed to vote in the election held for the society. 6. 5. On the contrary, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that 628 members were disqualified to vote and hence they cannot be allowed to vote in the election held for the society. 6. While considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General, I am of the considered view that if the 628 members of the Society were disqualified, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Authority named under the Act and Clause (4) of Section 90 of the Act is therefore, extracted herein: “(4) Any question as to whether an applicant for admission as a member of a society is, or a member of a registered society was, or has become, subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in this section, shall be decided by the Registrar.” That apart, Rule 38 of the Rules referred to above also speaks that no member shall be entitled to vote in election in the society of which he is a member if he is a defaulted member. In the case on hand, as already stated, it is stated on behalf of the respondents that 628 members for whom the petitioner is canvassing have been disqualified. 7. Therefore, in my considered view, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Authority named under the Act challenging the same. Therefore, the writ petition stands disposed of directing the petitioner to have such proceedings before the Authority under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 8. As far as the addition of new members, the Division Bench has already that the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Authority for challenging the inclusion of the new members. 9. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.