Kerala HC directs Cochin Corporation Homoeo Society to reschedule elections in one month
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the administrative committee of the Cochin Corporation Homoeo Society Ltd and the Returning Officer to reschedule the elections to the society within one month.
The polling should be held either at the premises of the society or at any office of the Corporation in and around Ernakulam. The Returning Officer should publish a preliminary voters list containing the names of members as on November 9, 2001, within a period of one month. It should also be published in the notice board at the office of the society at Vyttila. Thereafter a proper election should be conducted as per the schedule.
These directions were issued by Justice Kurian Joseph while allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by doctors who are members of the society. It challenged the conduct of election on the grounds of improper rejection of nomination papers and invalid list.
Eight nomination papers had been rejected because the candidates had not specified whether the constituency in which they proposed to contest was reserved or general. The court said the nomination papers could not be rejected on that ground alone.
If the nomination is otherwise valid, it has to be accepted and the candidate should be allowed to contest in the general category. The court also found that the voter's list included the names of those enrolled by the administrative committee appointed by the government. Since the administrative committee lacks power to enroll new members in a co-operative society to alter its composition, the members enrolled by the committee also could permitted to exercise their right to franchise, the court said.
Another infirmity found by the court was that the voter's list was not published in the office of the society at Vyttila, but published in a homoeo dispensary at Champakkara.
It is strange that the administrative committee proposed a private building at Fort Kochi as the location for polling, the court said. The justification was that it held the majority. This claim was disputed by the petitioners.