JUDGMENT : 1. Though not statutorily compelled, the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission has, in their wisdom and in exercise of their functions under Section 28(B) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act' for short), incorporated a specific stipulation in their Election Notification that no candidate shall file more than one nomination to more than one post in the election to be conducted to the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent- Kottayam District Police Co-operative Society Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as 'the Society' for short). 2. The interpretation of the above stipulation has been necessitated in this writ petition since the petitioners contend that any candidate who has filed two or more nominations must be excluded from the Final List of Candidates for the elections. 3. The petitioners, who are stated to be members of the 3rd respondent-Society, impugns the inclusion of respondents 4 to 7 in the Final List of Candidates, approved by the Returning Officer appointed for elections to the Managing Committee of the said Society by the State Co-operative Election commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission' for short), on the ground that their nominations have been accepted in violation of Note No.7 annexed to Exhibit P1-Election Notification (hereinafter referred to as 'Note' for short). 4. Since the contentions of the parties of this case are hypostatized on the Note, which is in Malayalam, I deem it appropriate to extract it as under: xxx 5. Roughly, this clause can be translated as: “One candidate cannot file more than one nomination to more than one post in the elections.” 6. The question that the petitioners hold out is whether the inclusion of respondents 4 to 7 in the Final List of Candidates, who admittedly filed more than one nomination under different categories as enumerated in Ext.P1-Notification, could obtain justification under the rigour of the afore Note. 7. Shri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri.Arun Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioners, fervently contend for the position that this Note operates as to entail rejection of both the nominations made by respondents 4 to 7. He asserts that, in any manner of looking at this Note, it is limpid that there is an injunction against a candidate from making more than one nomination to more than one post. He asserts that, in any manner of looking at this Note, it is limpid that there is an injunction against a candidate from making more than one nomination to more than one post. He says, therefore, that the words 'more than one' have been used in the Note twice-with respect to nominations and posts-would make it inescapable that no candidate can make more than one nomination in any category or to any post. He, therefore, submits that the action of the Returning Officer in having accepted the nominations of respondents 4 to 7 is untenable in law. 8. In response to this, Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission, submits that a statement has been filed on record, wherein the reasons for incorporation of this Note in Ext.P1 has been explained in the following lines:- “In Ext.P1 Election Notification issued by the State co-operative Election Commission to conduct election to the Kottayam District Police Cooperative Society Ltd.No.K.834, under Note 7, it has been prescribed that a candidate shall not file more than one nomination for more than one seat. It is submitted that elections to co-operative societies are governed under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the rules made there under. Either the Act or the Rules provides that a member of the Society can file more than one nomination to contest for more than one seat in the Committee of the Society. Therefore, more than one nomination is not permitted for more than one seat. By virtue of the mandate under Article 243ZK of the Constitution, the State Cooperative Election Commission exercising power under Sec.28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act/Rules is empowered to exercise control, supervision and issue direction in the conduct of election to co-operative societies. Rule 34a(9) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules also provides for issuing such directions. As the total number of seats in the committee of a society generally varies from seven to thirteen, the very purpose of the election would be defeated if more than one nomination is accepted. Because if a particular member owing to any reason is elected against a sizeable number of seats constituting the quorum or otherwise, the election itself would be perfunctory in nature and democracy would fail in such a case. Because if a particular member owing to any reason is elected against a sizeable number of seats constituting the quorum or otherwise, the election itself would be perfunctory in nature and democracy would fail in such a case. For example, if in a society where total number of seats is seven and one member who contests for four seats becomes the elected candidate, the quorum cannot be achieved, and for that reason alone a committee would not come into existence. Moreover, after election re-election has to be conducted, making the entire process laborious and expensive, causing financial as well as administrative difficulties also. It is submitted that, that unlike election to the parliament or Legislative Assembly, the sphere or orbit of the governing body to be elected in the case of a co-operative society is too short, usually comprising of seven to fifteen members, as stated above. It was in such a context, that the State Cooperative Election commission in the exercise of its powers under Section 28B of the said Act has issued a direction in the election Notification that one member shall not be entitled to contest for more than one seats. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in the case of election to the parliament and the Legislative Assemblies, as per Section 33(7)(a)&(b) of the Representation of the People Act, a person shall not be nominated as a candidate for election from more than two parliamentary or Assembly constituencies, as the case may be. Though it is settled law that the law governing election to Cooperative societies is in pari materia with the Representation of the peoples Act, the co-operative Societies Act/Rules have not provided for the liberty to file to contest in more than one seat by a single member. Therefore, the direction issued by the Election Commission in the election Notification, not to permit a single member to contest for more than one seat is legally perfect and intended to achieve the objectives of democracy in a co-operative society. Rejection of nominations on such a ground is only legal. In view of the above, condition No.7 in the election Notification imposes a legitimate restriction of not permitting a member of the society to contest for more than one post, as stated above. Rejection of nominations on such a ground is only legal. In view of the above, condition No.7 in the election Notification imposes a legitimate restriction of not permitting a member of the society to contest for more than one post, as stated above. But the practice followed is that, if a nomination is accepted for one post, the same person's other nomination to other posts will be rejected. But, the filing of more than one nomination itself is not regarded as a disqualification, as no such disqualification is prescribed under the Act and Rules.” 9. He says that, as is manifest from the penultimate and last Paragraphs of the afore extracted statement, the intention of the Election Commission, in having incorporated the Note which is not a Statutory one, is to ensure that a candidate cannot contest for two posts or two categories in the same election; but that it is not designed as a penal provision, so as to cause disqualification of both the nominations. 10. Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan thus explains that the inclusion of respondents 4 to 7 in the Final List of candidates is valid, since, when they made their nominations to two different categories under Ext.P1, only their first nomination was considered and accepted; except in the case of the 4th respondent, whose first nomination was found to be defective, leading to his second nomination being thereafter accepted. He says that by doing so, the Election Commission has ensured that respondents 4 to 7 are enabled to contest only in one of the categories and not more. 11. Shri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 to 7, submits that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, wherein, it has been specifically averred that even though two nominations were made by the said respondent under the categories of 'General' and 'Depositor' his nomination to the post of 'General' having been found defective, was rejected and that his second nomination to the category of 'Depositor' was then accepted. He says that in the case of other respondents, their first nominations, namely, to the category of 'General' were accepted without defect and therefore, that their second nominations were all rejected. He says that this has been done by the Election Commission validly and in the true spirit of the constitutional imperatives under Article 243ZK of the Constitution of India, to obtain free and fair elections. He says that this has been done by the Election Commission validly and in the true spirit of the constitutional imperatives under Article 243ZK of the Constitution of India, to obtain free and fair elections. 12. Shri.M.Sasindran then adds that the petitioners do not obtain the locus to maintain this writ petition and further that as long as there are no statutory inhibitions in a candidate making two nominations, inclusion of respondents 4 to 7 cannot be assailed by them even if the Note is construed otherwise. 13. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.C.S.Sheeja, appearing on behalf of the official respondents contended, as also pointed out by Shri.M.Sasindran, that as long as there are no disqualifications statutorily prescribed, the nominations of candidates cannot be normally rejected merely because they have made more than one. She, however, says that since the Election Commission has issued Ext.P1 and the Note under it invoking their powers under Section 28(B) of the KCS Act, all the candidates are bound to comply with the same; and that under the said stipulation, multiple nominations of candidates cannot be accepted and that they can contest only in one of the categories. 14. I have examined and assessed the afore submissions of the parties with deep contemplation, since I am aware that any decision that I take in this case may impact the rights of the party respondents to contest the elections. 15. It is now legally well entrenched that the obligation to conduct free and fair elections to the Managing Committee of a Society is vested in the Election Commission under the mandate of Article 243ZK of the constitution of India and Section 28(B) of the KCS Act. These provisions render it luculent that notwithstanding anything contained in the KCS Act and Rules, it is the Election Commission which obtains full competence and Authority in law to ensure that the elections are conducted and concluded in the manner as is required under the Constitution of India. There is, therefore, no doubt that they are fully competent to prescribe necessary conditions for the conduct of such elections, especially, when they are not in conflict with any of the other provisions of the KCS Act and Rules. There is, therefore, no doubt that they are fully competent to prescribe necessary conditions for the conduct of such elections, especially, when they are not in conflict with any of the other provisions of the KCS Act and Rules. The Note in question, namely, Note No.7 in Ext.P1, has also been issued by the Election Commission keeping this in perspective and indubitably invoking their powers under Section 28(B) of the KCS Act. 16. That having been said, there is no challenge to the Note as such and therefore, I do not need to labour upon the competence of the Election Commission in issuing it or upon its validity. Pertinently, all the parties rely on this Note in making their dialectical contentions and therefore, my present task is limited as to how this is to be interpreted. 17. While Shri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel, submits that this Note operates as a legal interdiction or as an injunction against a candidate in making two nominations, thus entailing rejection of both, if it is still so done; the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission maintains that the intention of the Commission was not to operate this Note as a punitive measure, causing rejection of the multiple nominations, so much as it is to ensure that a candidate contests only in one post and not more. 18. The resolution of the afore conflict would certainly lie the manner in which the Note itself is worded. There is little doubt that read literally, the Note says that no candidate can prefer more than one nomination to more than one post in the elections. Of course, the elections are being conducted to the Managing Committee of the Society and therefore, there can only be one post, namely, the member of the Managing Committee. However, the Election Commission says that the word 'post' has been used synonymously or interchangeably with the word 'category' and that no candidate can thus make more than one nomination to more than one 'category'. 19. In the case at hand, it is conceded that respondents 4 to 7 have made more than one nomination to different categories, including 'General'. I am also told by Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan that, going by the accepted convention, it is the nominations to the category 'General' which is first scrutinized, with the nominations to the other categories being done only thereafter. 20. I am also told by Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan that, going by the accepted convention, it is the nominations to the category 'General' which is first scrutinized, with the nominations to the other categories being done only thereafter. 20. Thus, going by the afore submissions of Shri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, when a person makes a nomination to the category, 'General' and to another category, his nomination to the former will be considered before the latter. Axiomatically, by the operation of the Note, as explained by Shri.lakshmi Narayan, if the first nomination is accepted, then the second nomination to the next category gets rejected. To that extent and since the Election Commission asserts that this is the true purport of the Note, I cannot find inclusion of respondents 5 to 7 to be untenable, notwithstanding the contentions of the petitioners, because what is relevant is the interpretation of the Note by its author, which is the said Commission. 21. However, when I so conclude, the sequel issue will be with respect to the 4th respondent, whose first nomination concededly was to the category 'General', but which was found to be defective and thus rejected, leading to the Returning Officer accepting his second nomination to the category 'Depositor'. Going by the Note, no candidate could have made nominations to two different posts ('categories' as per the Commission) and therefore, as rightly pointed out by Shri.George Poonthottam, the interdiction therein operates against the second nomination. When a candidate, who is certainly aware of this Note, makes two nominations, it can only be presumed that he is aware of the risk of his second nomination being rejected outright. 22. When I say as above, I am fully conscious that the attempt of Shri.M.Sasindran, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, to wriggle out of this is by saying that because his client's first nomination in the category 'General' was found defective, the Electoral Officer was justified in accepting his second nomination in the category of 'Depositor'. 23. However, there is nothing in the pleadings of the Commission, extracted afore, which would support the submissions of Shri.M.Sasindran and pertinently, it is silent as to how and in what manner the second nomination of a candidate will have to be dealt with, when the first is rejected for any reason. 23. However, there is nothing in the pleadings of the Commission, extracted afore, which would support the submissions of Shri.M.Sasindran and pertinently, it is silent as to how and in what manner the second nomination of a candidate will have to be dealt with, when the first is rejected for any reason. Of course, going by the present action of the Returning Officer, the second nomination of the 4th respondent has been accepted, solely because his first nomination was found capable of only being rejected. That being so, going strictly by the mandate of the Note, the second nomination could not have been considered because there is a clear interdiction, if not a virtual injunction, with respect to filing of nominations to two different categories by a candidate. 24. In that view of the matter, inclusion of the 4th respondent in the Final List of candidates cannot find my approval; particularly because the Commission, in their afore extracted statement, does not speak specifically about this scenario, as is clear from its contents. In the afore circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition, approving the inclusion of respondents 4 to 7 in the Final List of Candidates but ordering that the name of the 4th respondent shall be removed from the said list, for the ensuing elections to the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent- Society, scheduled to be held on 30/07/2019. This writ petition is so ordered.