Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1613 (KER)

Suja L, W/o Bhuvanendran v. State Of Kerala

2024-12-09

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

body2024
JUDGMENT : The petitioners are Class A members of the 6th respondent, Nellimoodu Vanitha Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T-1334 (for short 'the Society'). Class A members of the Society are eligible to vote and contest election to the Managing Committee of the Society. The State Co-operative Election Commission, issued Ext.P4 notification for election to the Managing Committee of the Society in terms of Section 28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) read with Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules'). The number of vacancies (seats) to be filled up by election is notified as 7', comprising four seats under the general category, one seat for SC/ST category and two seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years. As per the election programme, the date for making nominations was 28.11.2024 and the scrutiny of nominations was slated on 29.11.2024. The date for withdrawal of nominations was fixed as 30.11.2024 and the notified date for poll is 15.12.2024. 2. The petitioners submitted their nomination papers on 28.11.2024; the 1st petitioner to contest in the general category, the 2nd petitioner in the seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years and the 3rd petitioner in the category reserved for SC/ST. The nominations were filed in the prescribed form, and the petitioners made the required deposit under Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Rules as evidenced by Exts. P5 to P7 receipts. Altogether 13 nominations were received. Ext. P8 is the list of nominations received and published by the Returning Officer, the 5th respondent. 3. The scrutiny of nominations was conducted by the Returning Officer on 29.11.2024. The petitioners state that the scrutiny, which commenced at 11:00 a.m., was completed by 11:30 a.m., and their nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioners further state that no reason whatsoever was provided for rejecting their nominations. Ext. P9 is the list of validly nominated candidates. There are 9 valid nominations. Before the expiry of the time fixed for withdrawal of candidatures, two candidates withdrew their nomination. Ext. P11 is the final list of contesting candidates which included only 7 seven candidates for the 7 seats notified for election. 4. Ext. P9 is the list of validly nominated candidates. There are 9 valid nominations. Before the expiry of the time fixed for withdrawal of candidatures, two candidates withdrew their nomination. Ext. P11 is the final list of contesting candidates which included only 7 seven candidates for the 7 seats notified for election. 4. As per Rule 35A(6)(h) of the Rules, if the number of validly nominated candidates in a constituency does not exceed the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall, on the day fixed for the election, declare them as duly elected to the Committee. Against the 4 seats coming under the general category, there are only 4 contesting candidates, and against one seat reserved for SC/ST, there is only one candidate and against the two seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years, there are only two candidates. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 35A(6)(h) of the Rules, all the persons listed in Ext. P11 will be declared duly elected to their respective constituencies on 15.12.2024, the day fixed for the election. 5. The petitioners submit that rejection of their nominations is illegal and arbitrary and would undermine the integrity of the election process. It is contended that a candidate's presence during the scrutiny is not mandatory and the rejection of their nominations solely due to their brief absence is arbitrary and unwarranted. It is further stated that the petitioners have been unlawfully excluded from the list of candidates thereby eliminating healthy electoral competition in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for direction to the Returning Officer to complete the scrutiny and verification of nominations of the petitioners in a time bound manner before the election slated on 15.12.2024, in accordance with Rule 35A of the Rules, and to include their names in the final list of the contesting candidates and for other allied reliefs. 6. Heard Sri. Keerthivas Giri, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. C.M. Nazar, the learned standing counsel for the State Co-operative Election Commission, Sri. R.T. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the Society and Smt. Anima, the learned Government Pleader. 7. Sri. C.M. Nazar has made available the copy of the nomination papers of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner submitted nomination to contest election to a seat under the general category. C.M. Nazar, the learned standing counsel for the State Co-operative Election Commission, Sri. R.T. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the Society and Smt. Anima, the learned Government Pleader. 7. Sri. C.M. Nazar has made available the copy of the nomination papers of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner submitted nomination to contest election to a seat under the general category. Her nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer for the following reasons: (i) Address was not written. (ii) The declaration of the seconder was not filled. (iii) Challan for payment of fees was not produced. The 2nd petitioner submitted a nomination to contest for the seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years. Her nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer for the following reasons: (i) Has not submitted certificate in proof of age to contest for the seats reserved for candidates below the age of 40 years. (ii) Challan for payment of fees was not produced. The 3rd petitioner submitted nomination to contest for the seat reserved for SC/ST candidates. Her nomination was rejected for the following reasons: (i) Has not filled up or signed the declaration of the candidate. (ii) Challan for payment of fees was not produced. 8. Sri. Keerthivas, the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the reasons stated for rejecting the nominations of the petitioners are illegal and arbitrary. Their nominations were rejected on the grounds of defects that are not of a substantial character. Referring to the nomination paper of the 1st petitioner, Sri. Keerthivas would submit that failure to give address is not a defect of substantial nature. The nomination of the 2nd petitioner was rejected on the ground that she has not submitted certificate in proof of age to contest for the seats reserved for candidates below the age of 40 years. Sri. Keerthivas would contend that failure to produce certificate in proof of age also cannot be treated as defect of substantial nature. It is contended that, in both the above cases, the address and age could have been verified by the Returning Officer from the voters list. As regards the rejection of the nomination of the 3rd petitioner, it is contended that the failure to fill out or sign the declaration of the candidate cannot be a ground for rejecting the nomination. According to Sri. As regards the rejection of the nomination of the 3rd petitioner, it is contended that the failure to fill out or sign the declaration of the candidate cannot be a ground for rejecting the nomination. According to Sri. Keerthivas, the 3rd petitioner has duly filled out and signed the 'declaration of the candidate contesting for the seat reserved for SC/ST.' Therefore, even if she had not filled out or signed the 'declaration of the candidate,' the nomination meets the requirement of a valid nomination, as the 'declaration of the candidate contesting for the seat reserved for SC/ST' would be sufficient and amounts to substantial compliance. However, Sri. Keerthivas, in all fairness, submitted that the position he is canvassing is covered against the 3rd petitioner by the decision of this Court in Soman M.R. v. Electoral Officer [2008 KHC 7011: 2008 (4) KLT 984 : ILR 2009 (1) Ker. 222]. One common ground for the rejection of the petitioners' nominations is the non-production of the challan for payment of fees. Sri. Keerthivas would contend that the said ground also cannot be sustained as all the petitioners have made the deposit as required under Rule 35A (6)(b) as evident from Exts. P5 to P7 receipts. The learned counsel would submit that, in all these cases, the identity of the candidates is established beyond reasonable doubt and the grounds for rejection of nominations are not legal or valid. Sri. Keerthivas submits that the reasons stated for rejection of the petitioners' nominations are trivial, immaterial and hypertechnical and call for interference by this Court. The learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in Damodaran v. Joint Registrar [1989 KHC 198: 1989(1) KLT 858 ], Antnrayose v. Senior Inspector of Co-operative Societies [1992 KHC 381: 1992 (2) KLT 489 ], Santhosh v. Joint Registrar [1994 KHC 314: 1994 (2) KLT 141 ] and Mercy George v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission and others [2017 KHC 1050: 2018 (1) KLT 70 ] and contends that nominations to contest elections to Co-operative Societies cannot be rejected on technicalities and attempt should be to enable the member to contest, instead of ejecting him at the threshold on the basis of immaterial inconsequential defects or mistakes in the nomination paper. 9. Sri. C.M. Nazar, Sri. 9. Sri. C.M. Nazar, Sri. R.T. Pradeep and Smt. Anima, on the other hand, would contend that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 69 of the Act after the election is over. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have not produced the orders of the Returning Officer rejecting the nominations and no direction is sought to set aside the orders. Sri. C.M. Nazar would contend that the defects in the nomination papers are of substantial nature and the Returning Officer has rightly rejected the nominations. 10. Sri. Keerthivas, despite the risk of foreclosing a remedy under Section 69 of the Act, has persuaded this Court to examine the legality and propriety of the orders rejecting the nominations. 11. Section 28B of the Act provides for constitution of State Co-operative Election Commission for the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and for the conduct of all elections to Co-operative Societies including election to the office of President/Vice President and Representative General Body. Section 28B (4) of the Act provides that, subject to the provisions of the Act, the Government may by rule, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with elections to the Committee and Representative General Body of a Society. Rule 35A of the Rules deals with the procedure regarding the conduct of election to the committee of Societies by the State Co-operative Election Commission. Rule 35A (6)(a) to (g) of the Rules deals with nomination of candidates. Rule 35A (6)(h) deals with declaration of results of uncontested seats. Rule 35A (6)(a) to (h) of the Rules so far as relevant with the case on hand reads as follows: “R.35A(6) (a). The nomination of the candidates for Election shall be made in Form No.36 which shall be supplied by the Returning Officer to any member free of cost on application; (b) Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the voters list. One of the members shall sign the form as proposer and the other as seconder for the nomination. The nomination paper shall also contain a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election. One of the members shall sign the form as proposer and the other as seconder for the nomination. The nomination paper shall also contain a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election. Along with the nomination paper he shall deposit [two hundred and fifty rupees] in the Society, which shall be refunded to him [if he gets more than ten per cent of the total votes polled, or withdraws nomination or his nomination is rejected or he is declared elected by the Returning Officer without polling [in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe deposit of one hundred and twenty five rupees shall suffice]. Provided that the signature of the proposer or seconder or both shall not be insisted in cases where there are no sufficient members to make such proposal or seconding. [Provided also that in the case of election to the committee of Apex/Federal societies, representatives of member societies, shall, along with nominations, submit a copy of the resolution electing them as the representative attested by the president/secretary and two members in the respective committee affixing signature and official seal of the society/bank with the endorsement “true copy” with signature of the representative nominated by the society/bank attested by the president/secretary of the society/bank with the endorsement “attested” and fixing signature and official seal of the society.] (c) Every nomination paper shall be presented in person sent by registered post with acknowledgement due by the candidate himself, or by his proposer or seconder to the Returning Officer, so as to reach him before the date and hour specified in item (iii) of the notice referred to in clause (3). The Returning officer shall enter on the nomination paper its serial number and certify the date and hour at which the nomination paper is received by him and shall immediately give a written acknowledgement for the receipt of the nomination paper in Form No. 37. The Returning officer shall enter on the nomination paper its serial number and certify the date and hour at which the nomination paper is received by him and shall immediately give a written acknowledgement for the receipt of the nomination paper in Form No. 37. Any nomination paper not delivered or received on or before the date and time fixed for its receipt, shall be rejected.[The Returning Officer shall publish the list of nomination papers containing the name, address in the notice board on the last day fixed for the receipt of nomination.] (d) No member shall be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat in the committee, if he- (i) is ineligible to vote in the election; (ii) does not possess the necessary qualifications, if any, specified in the bye-laws of the Society for election and as a member of the committee, or (iii) is disqualified to be a member under the provisions of the Act and rules. (e)(i) On the day following the date fixed for the receipt of nomination papers, the Returning Officer shall take up the scrutiny of the nomination papers. The candidate or his proposer or his seconder may be present at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers. (ii) The Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall consider objection which may be made by any person in respect of any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion and after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination: Provided that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of an incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer or seconder or of any other particulars relating to the candidate or his proposer or seconder as entered in the list of members referred to in clause (b) if the identity of the candidate or proposer or seconder, as the case may be, is established beyond reasonable doubt. (iii) The Returning Officer shall give all reasonable facilities to the contesting candidates or their proposers or seconders, as the case may be, to examine all the nomination papers and satisfy themselves that the inclusion of the name of the contesting candidate is valid. (iii) The Returning Officer shall give all reasonable facilities to the contesting candidates or their proposers or seconders, as the case may be, to examine all the nomination papers and satisfy themselves that the inclusion of the name of the contesting candidate is valid. (iv) The Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same, as the case may be, and if the nomination paper is rejected, he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. (v) The Returning Officer shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or affray or by causes beyond his control. If any adjournment of the proceedings have been done due to the reasons mentioned above, the fact should be reported by the Returning Officer to the State Co-operative Election Commission forthwith. (vi) No member of the Society shall be eligible for being elected or appointed as a member of the committee under section 28 of the Act if he is disqualified under Rule 44 and as per the bye-law of the society. (f) The list of valid nomination as decided by the Returning Officer shall be published on the notice board of the Society containing the names in alphabetical order and address of the candidates as given in the nomination papers, on the same day on which the scrutiny of the nomination papers are completed. (g) Any candidate may withdraw his candidature by notice in writing signed by him and delivered in person or through the proposer, or seconder at any time after the presentation of his nomination paper but before 5 p.m. on the date following the day on which the valid nominations are published under clause (f), to the Returning Officer. A notice of withdrawal of candidature once given shall be irrevocable. Soon after the expiry of the time fixed for the withdrawal of candidature, the Returning Officer shall publish the final list of contesting candidates in the notice board of the Society. A notice of withdrawal of candidature once given shall be irrevocable. Soon after the expiry of the time fixed for the withdrawal of candidature, the Returning Officer shall publish the final list of contesting candidates in the notice board of the Society. (h) If, for any area or constituency for which election is to be held, the number of candidates whose nomination paper have been declared valid does not exceed the number of candidates to be elected for that area or constituency, the Returning Officer shall on the day fixed for the election, announce the names of all such candidates whose nominations are valid and declare them have been duly elected to the committee. If the number of the candidates whose nominations are valid exceeds the number to be elected for any area or constituency, the returning officer shall arrange for conducting a poll on the date fixed for the purpose. The requirements of a valid nomination that can be derived from the Rules are: (1) The nomination of the candidates for election shall be made in Form No.36 to the Rules which shall be supplied by the Returning Officer. (2) Every nomination paper shall be signed by two members whose names are included in the voters list. (3) One of the members shall sign the form as proposer and the other as seconder for the nomination. (4) The nomination paper shall contain a declaration signed by the candidate proposed for election to the effect that he is willing to stand for election. (5) Along with the nomination paper he shall deposit Rs 250/- and in case of SC/ST candidates Rs.125/-. (6) Every nomination paper shall be presented in person or sent by registered post with acknowledgment due by the candidate himself, or by his proposer or seconder to the Returning Officer, so as to reach him before the date and time notified. (7) Any nomination paper not delivered or received on or before the date and time fixed for its receipt, shall be rejected. (7) Any nomination paper not delivered or received on or before the date and time fixed for its receipt, shall be rejected. (8) No member shall be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat in the committee, if he is ineligible to vote in the election or if he does not possess the necessary qualifications, if any, specified in the bye-laws of the Society for election and as a member of the committee, or if is disqualified to be a member under the provisions of the Act, Rules or bye-laws of the society. 12. On the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, the Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall consider objection which may be made by any person in respect of any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion and after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination. However, the Rules provide that the nomination of candidates shall not be rejected due to minor inaccuracies in personal details if their identity, or that of their proposer or seconder, is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. After the scrutiny, the Returning Officer shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting the same, as the case may be, and if the nomination is rejected, he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. 13. It is to be noted that Rule 35A does not specifically provide for grounds for rejection of nomination. Nomination is the process of formally submitting oneself as a candidate for an elective office. He shall be qualified and shall not be disqualified under the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws of the Society to be elected to the managing committee of the Society. The nomination shall be in the form as prescribed. There shall be a proposer and a seconder whose names are included in the voters list. The proposer and the seconder shall sign the nomination form. The candidate shall sign the declaration in the nomination paper to the effect that he is willing to stand for election and that he is not disqualified under the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws of the Society to be elected to the Managing Committee of the Society. The nomination paper in Form 36 also contains the declaration to be given by the proposer and the seconder. The nomination paper in Form 36 also contains the declaration to be given by the proposer and the seconder. If the candidate belongs to SC/ST, such candidate has to sign a declaration in the nomination form to the effect that he is qualified to contest for the election in the seat reserved for the SC/ST candidate. Along with the nomination paper, the candidate shall make the prescribed security deposit. The nomination has to be presented to the Returning Officer in person or sent by registered post by the candidate or proposer or seconder before the date and time notified for its receipt. A valid nomination has to satisfy the above requirements. The proviso to Rule 35A (6) (e)(ii) provides that candidates' nomination shall not be rejected due to minor inaccuracies in personal details if their identity, or that of their proposer or seconder, is clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Rule provides that the rejection of nomination can only be on grounds of defect of substantial character. The term “defects of substantial character” in the context of election law refers to significant or material defects in a candidate's nomination paper that go beyond mere technical errors or minor irregularities. This Court has therefore to examine whether the nominations of the petitioners are rejected for defect of substantial character. 14. One common ground for rejecting the petitioners' nominations is the non-production of the challan for the payment of fees. Rule 35A(6)(b) provides that, along with the nomination paper, the candidate shall make a security deposit of the prescribed amount. A nomination without requisite security deposit cannot be treated as valid. The deposit has to be made in the Society and not before the Returning Officer. Therefore, the nomination shall be accompanied by proof of deposit. Though the petitioners have produced before this Court the receipts evidencing the deposit, the nomination papers were not accompanied by receipts showing that the requisite deposit has been made with the Society. Therefore, the Returning Officer has rightly rejected the nominations of the petitioners. 15. In view of the above finding, examining the other grounds for rejection of nominations is purely academic. The other reason for rejecting the nomination of the 1st petitioner is that she had not written her address in the nomination paper and the declaration of the seconder was not filled. 15. In view of the above finding, examining the other grounds for rejection of nominations is purely academic. The other reason for rejecting the nomination of the 1st petitioner is that she had not written her address in the nomination paper and the declaration of the seconder was not filled. The address of the candidate is required to be mentioned in the nomination to identify the candidate. There may be other persons in the membership of the Society with similar names. A nomination without address of the candidate cannot be treated as a complete and valid nomination. Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Rules provides that the nomination paper shall be signed by the proposer and the seconder. Besides, the nomination form contains a declaration to be given by the proposer and the seconder. The seconder has to give a declaration that he seconds the nomination of the candidate. Declaration of the seconder is an essential part of the nomination paper and failure to fill out the declaration by the seconder will render the nomination invalid. 16. The nomination of the 2nd petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that she had not submitted certificate in proof of age to contest for the seat reserved for candidates below the age of 40 years. Clause 12 of Ext.P4 notification stipulates that candidates contesting for seats reserved for individuals below the age of 40 years must produce certificate in proof of age. Such certificate is required to verify whether the candidate fulfills the age qualification. The failure to produce certificate for proof of age, where age is one of the qualification criteria, constitutes a defect of substantial character, rendering the nomination liable to rejection. 17. The 3rd petitioner submitted nomination to contest for the seat reserved for SC/ST candidates. Her nomination was rejected for the reason that she has not filled out or signed the declaration of the candidate. The nomination paper in Form 36 contains a declaration to be filled by the candidate to the effect that the candidate is willing to contest as a candidate and has no disqualification under the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws of the Society to be elected to the Managing Committee. The nomination paper in Form 36 contains a declaration to be filled by the candidate to the effect that the candidate is willing to contest as a candidate and has no disqualification under the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws of the Society to be elected to the Managing Committee. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the 3rd petitioner has duly filled out and signed the 'declaration of the candidate contesting for the seat reserved for SC/ST' and therefore, even if she had not filled out or signed the 'declaration of the candidate,' the nomination meets the requirement of a valid nomination, as the 'declaration of the candidate contesting for the seat reserved for SC/ST' would be sufficient and amounts to substantial compliance. It is to be noted that declaration to be filled and signed by the candidate under the head 'declaration of candidate' is to the effect that the candidate is willing to contest as a candidate and has no disqualification under the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws. Whereas, the 'declaration of the candidate contesting for the seat reserved for SC/ST' is to the effect that he is qualified to contest for election in the seat reserved for SC/ST candidate. Both declarations are distinct and different and the 'declaration of the candidate contesting for the seat reserved for SC/ST' cannot be in lieu of the 'declaration of candidate' as required in the nomination paper. The 3rd petitioner has not expressed her willingness to contest and there is no assertion as to the absence of disqualification in the nomination form. A similar issue came up for consideration in Soman M.R. (supra) wherein this Court held as follows: “3. For one thing, the form of nomination is a statutory form. The requirement to make the nomination in that form is a statutory requirement. The Rules prescribe the form and enjoins that the making of the nomination shall be in that form. When the law obliges a person to do a thing in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that way, except in cases where the rule is only directory or in certain exceptional situations where it could be held that there is substantial compliance of all necessary ingredients and anything surviving would be merely a surplusage. 4. When the law obliges a person to do a thing in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that way, except in cases where the rule is only directory or in certain exceptional situations where it could be held that there is substantial compliance of all necessary ingredients and anything surviving would be merely a surplusage. 4. Importantly, the declaration of the candidate, as prescribed in the form, requires the candidate to declare that he is 'willing to contest' and that he has 'no disqualification under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969', hereinafter, 'the Act', for short. The expression of the willingness to contest is sine qua non. When one is proposed by a member and that nomination is seconded by another, the one so nominated ought not to have incurred any disqualification in terms of the Act. This is an inexcusable requirement for the one nominated, to be eligible to contest. A declaration in that regard has necessarily to be given by the candidate himself. In contrast the statutory declaration by one nominated to contest to a seat reserved for SC/ST, as per the prescribed form, has to be that he is 'included in a particular caste and a particular religion' and he is 'qualified to contest for election in the seat reserved for SC/ST candidate'. The qualification to contest for election in a seat reserved for the SC/ST candidate is a condition that a candidate aspiring to be elected to a seat reserved for SC/ST should possess, over and above, the absence of any disqualification under the Act, which is a condition applicable to all who desire to be in the fray. Therefore, the mere declaration that he is qualified to contest for election in the seat reserved for SC/ST candidate is insufficient to be read as a declaration that he has not incurred any disqualification to be excluded from being a candidate in terms of the Act. When the willingness to contest and assertion as to absence of disqualification is required to be expressed in a particular form as a solemn declaration, that has to be expressed as prescribed. Principles of substantial compliance cannot be imported to sustain a nomination with no such declaration. When the willingness to contest and assertion as to absence of disqualification is required to be expressed in a particular form as a solemn declaration, that has to be expressed as prescribed. Principles of substantial compliance cannot be imported to sustain a nomination with no such declaration. The contention of the petitioner cannot therefore, be accepted.” The rejection of the nomination of the 3rd petitioner on the ground that she has not signed the declaration of the candidate in the nomination paper cannot therefore be faulted. 18. In Damodaran (supra), Antnrayose (supra) and Santhosh (supra), the rejection of nominations was for defects which were not of substantial character. In Mercy George (supra), this Court held that if the rejection of nomination for election to the Managing Committee of a Society is patently illegal or totally on untenable grounds and there is no need to adduce elaborate oral or documentary evidence, this Court can interfere with the rejection of nomination, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without upsetting the election calendar, and in all other cases, the person aggrieved has to avail the statutory remedy available under Section 69 of the Act. In the case on hand, I find that the rejection of nominations of the petitioners is legal and valid and calls for no interference by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.