IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15972 of 2009(N)
1. P.K.MURALI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION
... Respondent
2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NEDUMAN SERVICE
3. ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
4. UNIT INSPECTOR/ELECTORAL OFFICER,
5. NEDUMAN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/06/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.15972 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is one of the members of the 5th
respondent Society. According to the petitioner the
President of the Society took charge on 9.12.2008 and
during the period from 9.12.2008 to 27.4.2009, 779 new
members were enrolled into the society. It is stated that
on 5.5.2009, coming to know of the aforesaid enrollment
petitioner filed an application before the Secretary of the
Society, invoking the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, seeking disclosure of the details about
the newly enrolled members. According to the
petitioner, the application was kept pending and while
so by Ext.P2 dated 25.5.2009 election to the Society was
notified to be held on 26.9.2009. Later under the cover of
Ext.P3 dated 4.6.2009, a list of newly enrolled members
WP(c).N.15972/09 2
were furnished to the petitioner. On that date itself
preliminary voters list was published and objections were to
be filed till 8.6.2009. Petitioner submits that, he filed Ext.P4
objection before the Electoral Officer pointing out the
ineligibility of 439 members and requesting for their
removal and as there was no response, immediately
thereafter, on 9.6.2009, this writ petition was filed.
Objections were scheduled to be considered on 10.6.2008
and according to the petitioner notice was not issued to
him. Without hearing him, on considering the objections
raised, final voters list was published on 10.6.2009 itself.
It is at that stage the writ petition is coming up for hearing
and the prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to
the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 for removal of the
ineligible members.
2. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 3
and 5. The 3rd respondent would submit that not only that
there is no merit in the objections raised by the petitioner
but also that on receipt of Ext.P4 objection, petitioner was
personally intimated about the hearing on 10.6.2009 and
WP(c).N.15972/09 3
that he refused to attend the hearing. It is stated that
objections received including that of the petitioner were
considered and voters list was finalized and was published
on 10.6.2009. It is stated that, as the electoral process has
commenced, this court should not interfere with the same
and the course available to the petitioner is to pursue the
statutory remedies.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent,
they are justifying the admission of 779 members.
According to them in terms of the bye-laws, the enrollment
of the members was perfectly in order and the objections
raised by the petitioner are totally unsustainable. They also
contend that the final voters list having been published this
writ petition is devoid of any merit and are relying on the
judgment of this court in Subramanian V. Devikulam
Taluk Plantation Workers Co-Op. Society (2004(3) KLT
short note 105 case NO.145.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the
respective counsel. Although objection was filed by the
petitioners against the preliminary voters list, fact remains
WP(c).N.15972/09 4
that the final voters list has now been published. If that be
so, at this stage this court will not be justified in interfering
with the process of election. However, having regard to the
fact that the petitioner has raised objections regarding the
enrollment of 439 out of 779 members admitted during the
period from 9.12.2009 to 27.4.2009, once the process of
election is over, if the petitioner wants to seek statutory
remedy, an arrangement should be made so that his
remedy will not be rendered futile.
Therefore I think, in the facts of this case, it is only
appropriate to direct that the respondents shall provide a
separate ballot box for the 439 members. Although voting
will be conducted as above, it will be open to the Electoral
Officer to count the votes and declare the results of the
election, reckoning the votes of these 439 members as well.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).N.15972/09 5