Kerala Co-Op Societies Rules | Person Proposing Nomination Of Another Candidate Not Disqualified From Contesting Elections: High Court
K. Salma Jennath
2 Oct 2025 12:45 PM IST
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no provision under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules that disqualified a person from contesting in an election merely because he proposed the nomination of another candidate in the same constituency.
The judgment was rendered by Justice K. Babu, who was considering a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature in election to the APCOS Employees Co-operative Society Ltd No. T.1323 at Plamoottukada, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
The petitioner had filed nomination in Constituency B2 and his nomination was proposed by M. Satheeshkumar and seconded by another member of the society. M. Satheeshkumar also filed his nomination and the petitioner seconded it. After scrutiny of the list of candidates, the names of the petitioner and M. Satheeshkumar were omitted from the published list.
The petitioner claimed that the rejection of his candidate was illegal and came before the High Court for a direction to the Returning Officer (respondent No. 3) for accepting his name.
Respondent no. 3 contended that it is not permissible for a proposer to contest in the elections to the same constituency for the same post. It was also submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 69(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act by preferring an election petition.
The Court looked into Rule 129 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, which deals with the election of members. It observed:
“The submission is that a candidate who files nomination would stand disqualified to contest the election, if he proposes the nomination of another candidate to the same constituency. The relevant Rule does not contain any such provision. There are no indications in the relevant Rules that disqualifies a candidate from contesting an election on the ground that he proposed the nomination of another candidate in the same constituency. There is also no indication that a person who proposes or seconds nomination of another person would become disqualified from contesting the election.”
Therefore, it went on to hold that the rejection of nomination of the petitioner was illegal.
Next, the Court looked into the scope of judicial intervention in election mattes by invoking writ jurisdiction. It referred to the decisions in Sri.Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Mharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], Election Commission v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216], Mercy George v. The Kerala State Co- operative Election Commission [2018 (1) KLT 70] to reach the finding that writ courts can intervene to smoothen the progress of election and that there is no need to adduce elaborate oral or documentary evidence when the rejection of nomination paper is illegal.
Thus, it allowed the writ petition and directed the 3rd respondent to accept the nomination of the petitioner.
Case No: WP(C) No. 33733 of 2025
Case Title: R. Suresh Babu v. State Co-operative Election Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
Counsel for the petitioner: P.V. Baby, Vineeth P. Baby
Counsel for the respondents: Kaveri S. Thampi