JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner alleges that his nomination made to contest in the ensuing elections to the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent-Society has been illegally rejected by the Returning Officer for the reason that his daughter is working as a paid employee of the said Society. The petitioner concedes that had his daughter been a paid employee of the Society, then, certainly, the rigour of Rule 44(1) (b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (herein after referred to ‘the KCS Rules' for short) would have applied to him; but that since his daughter is only a Commission Agent it is unfair and illegal to reject his nomination on this ground. The petitioner through his learned counsel, Sri. T.R.Harikumar, thus prays that Ext.P2, to the extent to which the Returning Officer has rejected his nomination for this reason, be set aside. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission, Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, submitted that the word 'employee' has not been defined anywhere in the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rules ("KCS Act" and "Rules" for short) . He adds that, however, one can profitably refer to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme 1994, for this purpose wherein the word "employee" has been defined under Rule (2) (f) thereof. He says that, as is clear from this Rule, a Commission Agent is also an employee within the ambit of the afore Pension Scheme and, therefore, says that the Returning Officer was absolutely right in having rejected the petitioner's nomination. 3. Sri.M.Sasindran, learned standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-Society, submits that a counter affidavit has been filed on record showing how the petitioner's daughter was appointed into the service of the Bank, which was consequent to a selection process and that Ext.R4(b) document has been placed on record, wherein she has been shown as a Sales Girl on commission basis and that amounts have been remitted on her account towards the Welfare Fund. He says that the petitioner cannot, therefore, assail Ext.P2 order of the Returning Officer, since it is without doubt that his daughter is a paid employee under the Bank. 4. I have carefully evaluated the submissions as afore, and I am afraid that I cannot find in favour of the petitioner for the reasons that I will presently state. 5. He says that the petitioner cannot, therefore, assail Ext.P2 order of the Returning Officer, since it is without doubt that his daughter is a paid employee under the Bank. 4. I have carefully evaluated the submissions as afore, and I am afraid that I cannot find in favour of the petitioner for the reasons that I will presently state. 5. Even though the word 'employee' has not been specifically defined under the KCS Act and Rules, it is ineluctable that the purpose behind Rule 44(1) (b) of the KCS Rules is that once a person is elected to the Managing Committee of the Society, he cannot have any relationship with any of the employees there. This is a salutary principle to ensure that a member of the Managing Committee is not in a position to have any interest with respect to the employees of the Society particularly when they are proceeded under disciplinary action and such other. Since the Managing Committee is the highest Management Authority in a Society, it has to be insulated and independent of all such interests and obviously, therefore, if any of the close relatives of its members are employees therein, then their personal predilections and concerns would impede the objective of functioning as a member of the said Committee. 6. In that context, the submissions of Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan, hinged on the Pension Scheme, becomes relevant because even a Commission Agent is included in the definition of an "employee" therein, of course, only to the to extent to which it offers pecuniary benefits to such persons. However, this is an indication that what is intended is that even persons who work as Commission Agents must get the benefit which is normally given to a permanent employee. 7. I hasten to add that am not concluding affirmatively that a Commission Agent is always an "employee" of a Society; but in the context of the scenario involved in this case, it is fairly well indicated that a person who works as a Commission Agent can also be construed as an employee, at least under the Pension Scheme. 8. 7. I hasten to add that am not concluding affirmatively that a Commission Agent is always an "employee" of a Society; but in the context of the scenario involved in this case, it is fairly well indicated that a person who works as a Commission Agent can also be construed as an employee, at least under the Pension Scheme. 8. In the afore perspective and since I am guided by the purposive interpretation of Rule 44(1) (b), I deem it appropriate not to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in this case and leave the petitioner all liberties and remedies as may be available to him under the KCS Act and Rules after the election process is over. I am also persuaded to this course on account of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri. Sant Sadguru v. State of Maharashtra and Others ( AIR 2001 SC 3982 ), wherein a clear inhibition has been advised in the exercise of jurisdiction by Courts after the election process has been set in motion. 9. Resultantly, I dismiss this writ petition, however, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions of the rival parties; but clarifying that my observations in this judgment are only intended for the limited purpose of the issue that has been considered herein, thus leaving full liberty to the petitioner to invoke all his remedies based on such contentions before the alternative statutory forum, if he is so interested.