IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21027 of 2009(W)
1. ABDUL MUNAF, S/O.ABDUL RAYAMMARAKKAR
... Petitioner
2. K. VENUGOPAL, KIZHUVEETTIL HOUSE,
3. K.P. PAUL, KANJIRATHINKAL,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (G),
4. UNIT INSPECTOR (RETURNING
5. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION,
6. VENKITANGU FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE BANK
For Petitioner :SRI.K.HARILAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :27/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.21027 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are members of the 6th respondent, a Co-
operative Bank. Their grievance in this writ petition is
regarding Ext.P2, a final voters list published for the
election to the Managing Committee of the 6th respondent.
Petitioners contend that going by Ext.P1 election
notification and Ext.P6 bye-laws of the Society, the area of
operation of the Society is spread over 8 wards and the final
voters list that is now published is a consolidated one,
without any bifurcation of the voters into different wards, in
which the area of operation of the society is divided.
According to the petitioners, this has been done
deliberately with the mala fide intention of creating
confusion and difficulty in identifying the voters and to
pave way for impersonation in the election.
WP(c).No.21027/09 2
2. Ext.P1 election notification and Ext.P6 bye-laws only
provide that there shall be representation in the managing
committee from each of the wards, over which the Society has
its area of operation. However, there is no provision either in
Ext.P2 notification or in Ext.P6 bye laws requiring the Society
or the Electoral Officer to prepare voters list separately for
each of the wards. Neither is there any provisions in the Co-
operative Societies Act or the Rules which requires the Society
to prepare voters list as contended by the petitioners. If so
the voters list cannot be said to be illegal for any reason.
3. As far as their grievance that the list now prepared is
capable of being misused by creating confusion and difficulty
in identifying the voters leading to impersonation is
concerned, I feel that the capability of misusing the voters
lists itself cannot invalidate the list, requiring this court to
exercise its extra ordinary power under Artl.2226. In case the
list is misused and impersonation is practiced, the remedy of
the petitioners is to file an election petition.
Therefore, I am not satisfied that the petitioners have
made out a case for interference.
WP(c).No.21027/09 3
Writ Petition fails and is dismissed.
vi (ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
WP(c).No.21027/09 4