IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7009 of 2010(O)
1. S.GOPAKUMAR, PRIYA VIHAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. R.JOSEPH, S/O.K.RABHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
3. A.THANKARAJAN, S/O.D.ALEXANDER,
4. P.RAJENDRAN, S/O.K.PADMANABHAN,
5. B.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,
6. D.SREEKUMARAN, S/O.DIVAKARAN,
7. T.U.PREMKUMAR, S/O.K.UMAMAHESWARAN,
8. G.DROUPADI, D/O.A.KRISHNAN,
9. R.MADHAVI AMMA,
10. D.OMANA AMMA, D/O.GOVINDAN NAIR,
11. C.SANTHAMMA, D/O.SARASAMMA,
12. D.RAJALEKSHMY AMMA,
13. S.SDUBHAYA, D/O.V.KUNJUKRISHNAN,
14. B.LALITHAMMA, D/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,
15. INDIRAMMA, D/O.DEVAKI AMMA,
16. HARIDAS G., S/O.GOPALAN ACHARI,
17. KRISHNA NAIR S., S/O.SANKARA PILLAI,
18. PROF.N.MADHAVAN KUTTY NAIR,
19. K.N.CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP,
20. B.GAYATHRI, D/O.SUGATHAN,
21. S.PERUMAL PILLAI, S/O.M.SUBRAMNAYA
22. V.PUSHPABALAN, S/O.P.VELAYUDHAN ACHARY,
23. THE KERALA HINDI PRACHARA SABHA,
24. THE SECRETARY,
25. THE PRESIDENT/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
26. THE TREASURER,
27. K.KESAVAN NAIR,
28. DR.S.RAJAPPAN NAIR,
29. M.JANARDHANAN PILLAI,
30. G.S.PRASANTH, RANI HOUSE,
31. J.JOSE, MAVUVILA VEEDU,
32. C.SWARNAMMA, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
33. S.RAJENDRAKUMAR, THUDAYALKODE,
34. K.JANARDHANAN NAIR,
35. V.S.SURESH BABU, MULLUVILA VEEDU,
36. DR.S.LEELAKUMARI AMMA,
37. B.RAJESH, SWATHI, T.C.64/246,
38. K.G.REMADEVI, NAVABHARATH HINDU COLLEGE,
39. S.SREEDHARAN NAIR, METTIL,
40. DR.B.VIJAYAMMA, SABARMATHI,
41. K.KALESHANKAR, SANKARALAYAM,
42. V.SOMASEKHARAN NAIR,
43. K.SADASIVAN NADAR, ASWATHI,
44. V.P.BABURAJ, VVZHATHOPPIL VEEDU,
45. P.JAYAKUMARAN NAIR,
46. J.PONNAMMA, SOWBHAGYA,
47. DR.S.HARIPRIYA, THRIVENI,
48. K.R.RANJINI AMMU, 74-RAVI NAGAR,
49. S.VIJAYAKUMAR,
50. DR.P.LATHA, AARATHI,
51. P.S.KUMARI LATHA,
52. V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
53. A.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
54. T.SAJITH, KRISHNA, T.C.5/2415(1),
55. M.ANITHAKUMARI, MEENA BHAVAN,
56. DR.J.HARIKUMAR, HARI BHAVAN,
57. S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SAKETH,
58. R.BINI, SOPANAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.VPK.PANICKER
For Respondent :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :31/03/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
————————————-
WP(C) No.7009 of 2010
————————————-
Dated 31st March 2010
Judgment
The challenge made in this Writ Petition filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against
Exts.P5 and P10 orders.
2. The petitioners herein and 6 others became members of
the Kerala Hindi Prachar Sabha as per the decision of the
Executive Committee dated 19.12.2005. They have
remitted all the amounts due to the Sabha. Though the
petitioners were not allowed to cast their vote in the
election held on 30.04.2006, pursuant to the order of the
District Court, they were included in the voters list
published by the Returning Officer for the election of 2009.
The parties were called upon to submit draft bye-laws and
the copy of the draft bye-laws submitted by the petitioners
is Ext.P2 and that of the counter petitioners is Ext.P3. It is
stated that the original petitioners and the counter
WPC 7009/10 2
petitioners, without consulting with the other members of
the Sabha, clandestinely compromised the matter and
framed a new scheme by taking some provisions from
Exts.P2 and P3. A copy of the said compromise petition is
produced as Ext.P4. The District Court, by Ext.P5 order
dated 01.08.2009, passed a common order by which
Ext.P4 scheme was accepted. The OP was allowed,
recording that the compromise filed, will form part of the
order. It also appointed a retired District Judge as the
Receiver for conducting election in accordance with the
scheme.
3. It is claimed that immediately on coming to
know of the filing of the compromise between the original
petitioners and the counter petitioners and also the passing
of Ext.P2 order, the petitioners herein filed IA No.2208/09
for getting themselves impleaded in the OP, a copy of
which is produced as Ext.P7. When Ext.P4 application was
taken up, the learned District Judge was of the opinion that
an application to set aside the compromise, scheme and
WPC 7009/10 3
the subsequent order dated 1.8.2009 alone is maintainable
and therefore, the petitioners filed IA No.2240/09 for the
said relief. Copy of the said IA is produced as Ext.P8. The
petitioner took objection to Ext.P5 order wherein it was
directed to finalise the voters list. The petitioner points out
that the said order is clearly unsustainable in law. Equally
unsustainable is Ext.P10, it is submitted.
4. It would appear that the Court below has not
considered both the applications in the proper perspective.
So, it is felt that the matter requires reconsideration at the
hands of the Court below. Accordingly, Exts.P5 and P10
are set aside and the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram is
directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with
law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both
sides. The Court below shall make every endeavour to
dispose of the matter within one month from the date of re-
opening of the Court after the mid-summer vacation.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
WPC 7009/10 4
sta
WPC 7009/10 5