ORDER
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. The petitioners filed their nomination papers for contesting election to the com-mittee of Ponmundam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. 10820, hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'. Ext. P 1 is the election notification. The petitioners filed their nomination papers along with a declaration in the form of an affidavit. The forms were obtained from the society. But the petitioners omitted to sign the declaration in the form of an affidavit which forms part of the nomination paper. On that basis, the first respondent Returning Officer rejected their nominations. It is in the above circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the rejection of their nomination papers and seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider their nomination papers and to include their names in the final list of candidates tor election to the committee of the Bank.
2. It is submitted by the petitioners that the nomination paper need contain only the details regarding the candidate, proposer and seconder and a declaration as to his identity and qualification. A further affidavit is not contemplated by the Act or Rules and therefore any defect in such affidavit cannot invalidate the nomination paper so as to reject it. The affidavit accompanying the nomination paper is one prescribed by the Circular by the Registrar and the Registrar does not have an authority under the Act or Rules to prescribe such an affidavit to form part of a nomination paper. Rules provide that nomination paper shall be prescribed by the society concerned and when the society has already prescribed a nomination paper which also contains a declaration, there need not have a further affidavit and any defect in such further affidavit cannot result in rejection of the nomination paper.
3. Rule 35 (3)(c) (i) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules specifically provides that;
'The nomination of the candidates forelection shall be made in the form prescribed by the Society which on application shall be supplied by the committee to any member, free of cost.' Thus the nomination form shall be prescribed only by the committee and the committee can have its own format and enclosures which shall accompanied a nomination form. The society can always in terms of Rule 35(3)(c)(i) prescribe a form with its necessary enclosures. Moreover Rule 35 (3)(c)(ii) provides that; '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.'
So it is mandatory in every form prescribed by the society to contain a declaration signed by the candidate. Ext. P 2 and Ext, P 3 together form the nomination paper supplied by the Society for submission by the candidates after filling up necessary columns. Ext. P 2 and Ext. P 3 together constitute the form prescribed by the Society in terms of Rule 35 (3)(c)(i). Ext. P3 is an inseparable part of a nomination paper which is prescribed by the Society. Therefore the petitioner is liable to fill that form as well. It cannot be said that, that is an unnecessary addition in excess of what is statutorily required, when the Society is empowered to prescribe its own form.
4. Moreover the caption on Ext. P 3 which forms part of the nomination paper is as follows;
'Form of declaration to be submitted along with nomination paper.'
So that is the declaration prescribed by the Society which is necessary in terms of Rule 35 (3) (c)(ii). It is an admitted fact that the petitioners did not sign the declaration in the form of Ext. P. 3. That means that is a defective nomination paper which shall result in rejection.
5. In the decision Santhosh v. Joint Registrar 1994 (2) KLT 141 this court had examined the necessary requirement of a valid nomination 'which include a declaration of a candidate.' It has been held in the said decision as follows :
'The affidavit sets forth this affirmation in greater detail with specific reference to the various qualifications and disqualifications under the rules and the bye-laws. Though this is the position, and they serve more or less the same purpose, since the affidavit is also a requirement of the form prescribed by the society, necessarily that has also to be properly executed and attested for the purposes of a valid nomination.'
When the signatures of the petitioners are absent in such forms, necessarily there was no declaration by the petitioners along with the nominations.
6. It is contended by the petitioners that the above observation of this Court in the said judgment does not have a statutory backing because a form of affidavit is not prescribed by the statute. Moreover it is one prescribed by he Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the form of a circular. But the Registrar has only helped the Societies or Banks concerned, in order to prepare a declaration. When the societies have' adopted it to form part of the nomination paper prescribed, that gets status of a form prescribed by the society or bank concerned. The societies are free to accept the advices and guidelines given by the Registrar with regard to the elections and other managerial functions. So it cannot be stated that the form of declaration in the form of affidavit appended to the nomination form is not prescribed by the society but by the Registrar and therefore does not form part of a valid nomination paper.
In the above circumstances the rejection of nomination papers submitted by the petitioners cannot be said to be faulty. Original Petition fails and is dismissed.