Kerala High Court
Ummer K.A vs State Co-Operative Election ... on 15 May, 2017
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/26TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 20129 of 2017 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. UMMER K.A.,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. ALAVIKUTTY, KORAKKANDAN HOUSE,
PALAMOOLA, PULPALLY,
WAYANAD DISTRICT-673579.
2. RATHEESHKUMAR K.R.,
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O. RAVEENDRAN, KALLUPADIYIL HOUSE,
MANICHIRA, POOMALA P.O.,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592.
3. CHANDRIKA K.M.,
AGED 54 YEARS,
W/O. K. RADHAKRISHNAN,
KUNNATH HOUSE, PURAKKADI,
MEENANGADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673591.
4. MUJEEB K.A,
AGED 39 YEARS,
S/O. ALI K.P., KAROTTUPUTHENPURAYIL,
KUPPADI, SULTHAN BATHERY,
WAYANAD - 673 592.
BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSIONER,
CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
VYTHIRI, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673121.
(ELECTORAL OFFICER, APPOINTED FOR THE ELECTION
OF THE COMMITTEE OF WAYANAD DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT SERVANTS WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED, W 300)
WP(C).No. 20129 of 2017 (M)
3. UNIT INSPECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
VYTHIRI, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 121.
(RETURNING OFFICER, APPOINTED FOR THE ELECTION
OF THE COMMITTEE OF WAYANAD DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT SERVANTS WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LIMITED, W 300)
4. WAYANAD DISTRICT GOVERNMENT SERVANTS
WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, NO. W 300,
CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA, WAYANAD - 673 121,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HONORARY SECRETARY.
5. MANOJ V.,
AGED 46 YEARS,
S/O. SANKARAN NAIR C.,
CHANDRAKANTHAM, GANDHI NAGAR,
KAINATTI, KAPETTA NORTH,
WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 122.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.N.SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
rvs.
WP(C).No. 20129 of 2017 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED
15/05/2017 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14/06/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER FOR IDENTITY CARD
IN FORM NO.6A TO THE SECRETARY
EXHIBIT-P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14/06/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBER GEORGE SEBASTIAN TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY FOR
IDENTITY CARD IN FORM NO.6A
EXHIBIT-P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14/06/2017
SUBMITTED BY THE MEMBER, K.A. SAIDU TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT SOCIETY FOR
IDENTITY CARD IN FORM NO. 6A
EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
PETITIONER DATED 03/06/2017 TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, ELECTORAL OFFICE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
rvs.
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No.20129 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
According to the petitioner, election proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent, evident from Ext.P1 notification, for the election of new committee of the 4th respondent society is vitiated by illegalities, arbitrariness and non-compliance of the statutory requirements. Other acquisitions are made against the society, depriving the petitioners from understanding the details of the election process.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.
3. It is evident from the pleadings made in the writ petition that, the election is to take place on 19.6.2017. It is well settled proposition in law and also as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak W.P.(C). No.20129 of 2017 2 Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], once a draft voters' list is prepared and election process starts, the constitutional courts are not expected to interfere or meddle with the election process by resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said proposition of law strictly applies to the pleadings made in this writ petition also. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the election process and to grant any relief to the petitioners.
Writ petition is dismissed leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to approach the statutory authorities after the election is over, if aggrieved and advised so.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE smv 16.6.2017