Soman M.R. Vs. the Electoral Officer and anr. - Court Judgment

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioner challenges the rejection of the nomination submitted by him for election to the committee of a co-operative society. Admittedly, he did not make the declaration to be made by the candidate, though he states that he has made a declaration to be made by a candidate who is contesting to the seat reserved for SC/ST. He, therefore, contends that such a declaration would be sufficient and would be one in lieu of the declaration of the candidate as required by Form No. 36 issued in terms of Rule 35A(6)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, for short, the 'Rules'. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is that a declaration that the petitioner is qualified to contest for election in the seat reserved for SC/ST candidates in the election proposed to be held on a particular day should necessarily be treated to include his declaration that he has no disqualification under the Act and that he is willing to contest.

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. 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 Co-operative 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 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. The contention of the petitioner cannot, therefore, be accepted.

5. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.