Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K. Manikandan vs State Co-Operative Election Commissin on 9 December, 2013

Author: K.Surendra Mohan

Bench: K.Surendra Mohan

       

  

   

 
 
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

               THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/16TH SRAVANA, 1936

                                    WP(C).No. 18685 of 2014 (I)
                                       ----------------------------

PETITIONERS:
--------------------------

        1. K. MANIKANDAN
            KARADIVILA, KOTTAPURAM, VIZHIJAM
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        2. C.CHANDRAN,
            T.C.21/1833, NEDUNKADU, KARAMANA P.O.
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        3. U.S.RENJITH,
            T.C.7/822, GOVINDA MANGALAM, VATTIYOORKAVU
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        4. PRAVEENRAJ.P.R.,
            BRRA-219, SOUBHAGYA LANE, PETTAH
            KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        5. B.VIJAYAN,
            VIPIN NIVAS, MADATHINNADA, THIRUVALLAM
            AMBALATHARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        6. ANIL NAIR,
            PUTHEN VEEDU, ADHARSH NAGAR, T.P.ROAD
            PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
                          SRI.REMYA MURALI
                          SRI.A.K.RAJESH
                          SRI.VENKATESH GOPI

RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------

        1. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSIN
            CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
            PIN-695001.

        2. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
            MATHILAKAM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD.NO.T.1886
            PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
            PIN-695008.

WP(C).No. 18685 of 2014 (I)


    3. MATHILAKAM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD.NO.T 1886,
       PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
       PIN-695008, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    4. THE RETURNING OFFICER/PAPPANAMCODE UNIT INSPECTOR,
       MATHILAKAM CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD.NO.T 1886
       PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
       PIN-695008.

       R1,R2 & 4 BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI D SOMASUNDARAM

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 18685 of 2014 (I)
----------------------------

                                           APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------

P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
9.12.2013.

P2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.E(1)2118/2014/SCEC DATED 7.7.2014.

P3: COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8.7.2014.

P4: COPY OF THE VOTERS LIST OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.7.2014.

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 31.07.2014 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BYE-LAW OF THE THIRD
RESPONDENT SOCIETY

P8:TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.07.2014 ISSUED BY DUBAI GOLD
JEWELLERY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

P9:TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.07.2014 ISSUED BY DUBAI
JEWELLERY IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH PETITIONER

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01.07.2014 ISSUED BY AMMA FLOWER
SHOP, ATTUKAL IN FAVOUR OF THE THIRD PETITIONER

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01.07.2014 ISSUED BY KUNCHUVEETIL
FURNITURE MART, ATTUKAL IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------

          NIL


                                                    // TRUE COPY //


                                                    PA TO JUDGE



                  K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
            ---------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No.18685 of 2014-H
           ----------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 7th day of August, 2014

                       J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have filed this writ petition complaining that, their names have been removed from the final voters' list without any justification. According to the petitioners, their names were included in the draft voters' list produced as Exhibit P3. However, in the final voters' list, their names do not figure. As per Exhibit P2 notification, an election to the Managing Committee of the third respondent society is scheduled to be held on 10.08.2014. Two petitioners had submitted nominations. Since their names are not available in the final voters' list, it is pointed out that, their nominations would only be rejected.

2. Since as per Exhibit P2 notification, the scrutiny of the nominations was to be conducted till 5PM on 30.07.2014, it was held that, one further opportunity was -:2:- W.P.(C) No.18685 of 2014-H necessary to be provided to the petitioners to produce proof before the Electoral Officer that they were entitled to be included in the final Voters' List. Therefore, as per order dated 30.07.204, the petitioners were directed to be appeared before the second respondent at 11AM on 31.07.2014. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:-

The petitioners are, therefore, directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 31.07.2014, that is; tomorrow at 11a.m., with all necessary records to prove their entitlement to be members of the Society. The 2nd respondent shall consider the records as well as their contentions and shall decide whether they should be included in the final voters' list. If the decision is that, they are entitled to be included in the final voters' list, the 4th respondent shall re-consider Ext.P5 and pass necessary orders.
As per the above direction, the matter was reconsidered.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioners, since the petitioners were not able to obtain records to substantiate their contention of eligibility, they sought time to produce necessary documents. However, it is alleged that, such an opportunity was not granted and their -:3:- W.P.(C) No.18685 of 2014-H nominations have been rejected. I.A.No.10530 of 2014 has been filed producing Exhibits P8 to Exhibits P11 certificates in support of their contention that, the petitioners are working within the area of operation of the society. It is therefore contended that, appropriate directions are necessary to be issued to the second respondent to include the names of the petitioners in the final voters' list.
4. The Special Government Pleader Sri. D Somasundaram appears for respondents 1, 2 and 4. A statement has been filed producing Exhibits R2(a) to R2(d) documents. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, the petitioners had not appeared for the hearing that was scheduled on 11.A.M. on 31.07.2014 as directed by this Court. However at 1 PM, the first petitioner appeared before the second respondent and requested for time to produce documents. The second respondent is stated to have informed the said person that he would be available in his Office during the office hours. At 3.55PM, the first and second petitioners appeared and submitted a representation requesting to extend the time further to produce documents -:4:- W.P.(C) No.18685 of 2014-H showing their eligibility. Though the second respondent is stated to have waited till 5.15PM, no documents were produced. Therefore, the names of the petitioners were not included in the final voters' list.
5. According to Sri B.S.Swathi Kumar who appears for the petitioners, in view of Exhibits P8 to P11 documents that positively prove the eligibility of the petitioners to be members of the society and to contest the election, it is only appropriate that their names are also directed to be included in the voters' list.

Heard. I have examined the certificates, Exhibits P8 to P11 that are produced. Prima facie, they do not inspire confidence. They appear to be documents procured from private business establishments at the last minute. Two certificates are from a Jewellery, while the other two are from two furniture marts. The order directing the petitioners to appear before the second respondent with sufficient documents to prove their eligibility was issued in view of the submission at the Bar that, the petitioners were possessed of sufficient documents to prove their eligibility. -:5:- W.P.(C) No.18685 of 2014-H It was only in order to facilitate them to participate in the election, if they were actually eligible, that an opportunity was granted to them. However, they have not been able to make use of the opportunity or to take advantage thereof. The petitioners have, if they are still aggrieved, the remedy of challenging the election in a properly filed election petition, after the polling is over.

For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that any interference with the impugned proceedings is called for in this writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed, but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to prefer an election petition against the election.

Sd/-

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj