Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3228 (MAD)

S. P. Nallathambi v. District Election Officer

2014-09-10

B.RAJENDRAN

body2014
Judgment 1. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the proceedings dated 22.08.2014 published in Dinathanthi dated 25.08.2014 insofar it relates to Serial No.1 for conduct of the election. 2. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 52(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 there should be clear thirty days notice between the Election Notification and the election date. However, in this case, as per the publication, the Notification was made on 22.08.2014 and the publication in the paper was made on 25.08.2014 for the nomination to be filed on 15.09.2014 and the election to be conducted on 19.09.2014. Therefore, the clear thirty days mentioned in the provision has not been fulfilled. Accordingly, he would pray for quashing the very proceedings. 3. Learned Special Government Pleader, today, on instructions, would submit that as per Rule 52 (5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, the Election Commission shall fix the date of election and draw up a programme for the conduct of the election to the Society or group of societies and send a copy of the programme drawn to the State Election Officer and the District Election Officer concerned at least twenty one days prior to the date of poll and also to the Society or group of Societies. It is further submitted that the aforesaid rule has been adhered to by the respondent. According to him, as early as 06.08.2014, the date of election has been fixed as 19.09.2014 and the same has been communicated to the Society and in between these two dates, 30 clear dates are fulfilled, which is as per the provision. 4. Learned Special Government Pleader would further point out that insofar as Rule 52(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 is concerned, notice of election shall be sent to only those members who were the members on roll, thirty days prior to the date of poll. Accordingly, he would submit that the respondent has adhered to the aforesaid rules as contained in the provision and that the petitioner cannot have any grievance. Hence, he would pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard both sides. 6. At the outset, it is relevant to extract Rule 52(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, which reads as follows: "52. Hence, he would pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Heard both sides. 6. At the outset, it is relevant to extract Rule 52(6)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, which reads as follows: "52. Election of members of the board 1. ......... 2.......... 3........... 4........... 5........ (6)(a) The Registrar or the Election Officer shall, send notice of election to the members who, on the date thirty days prior to the date of poll, were the members of the society. The notice shall contain information regarding - (i) the number of vacancies to be filled up by election; (ii) constituency, if any, from which the members are to be elected. (iii) the date, place and time fixed for filing, scrutiny, withdrawal and publication of valid list of nominations; (iv) the date, place and time specified for polling; and (v) the time, date and place in which the counting of votes shall take place]." which clearly mandates that the Registrar or the Election Officer should send notice of election, to the members who, on the date thirty days prior to the date of poll, were the members of the society. (emphasis supplied). The reading should be, the Election Officer shall send notice of election only to the members, who were members of the society prior to thirty days before the poll and not notice should be sent prior to thirty days because the other Rule, viz., Rule 52(5)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 categorically states that the Registrar shall fix the date of election and draw up a programme and send a copy of the same to the society and the election officer concerned only twenty one days prior to the date of poll. There cannot be any repugnant to that provision. The intention of the Legislator is only to inform those persons, who were available on records as members of the society, thirty days prior to the date of election and not to those persons, who were not and only to make a distinction, that clause has been incorporated. 7. In view of the above clear position, I find no reason to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 22.08.2014 published in Dinathanthi dated 25.08.2014 insofar it relates to Serial No.1 for conduct of the election to the respondent-society. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. 7. In view of the above clear position, I find no reason to quash the proceedings of the respondent dated 22.08.2014 published in Dinathanthi dated 25.08.2014 insofar it relates to Serial No.1 for conduct of the election to the respondent-society. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.