Kerala High Court
Thomas M T vs The Kerala State Co-Operative Election ... on 11 December, 2018
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 38857 of 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 THOMAS M T, S/O THOMAS,
AGED 50 YEARS
MEMBER NO. 86, MURRATTUPOOVATHINKAL HOUSE,
VADATTUPARA POST OFFICE, CHELAD (VIA),
VADATTUPARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686681.
2 P.I.PAILY,S/O ISAHACK,
AGED 70 YEARS
MEMBER NO.1087, PAREKKUDIYIL HOUSE, VADATTUPARA
POST OFFICE, CHELAD (VIA), VADATTUPARA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686681.
3 RAHUL K.R., S/O RAVI,
AGED 25 YEARS
MEMBER NO. 7404, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, VADATTUPARA
POST OFFICE, CHELAD (VIA), VADATTUPARA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686681.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION
3RD FLOOR, CO-BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033., REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR/SECRETARY.
2 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTHAMANGALAM CO-OPERATIVE
CIRCLE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686 691.
W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 2
3 THE RETURNING OFFICER/UNIT INSPECTOR,
KOTTAPADY UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT
REGISTRAR OF
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTHAMANGALAM
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM CO-OPERATIVE CIRCLE,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKUALM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.
4 THE IDAMALAYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LIMITED NO.1.178, VADATTUPARA POST OFFICE,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.P. HARISH
R4 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 3
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos.38857 of 2018
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, who are members of the 4 th respondent Society, which is a Primary Co-operative Credit Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 election notification dated 31.10.2018 issued by the 1st respondent State Co-operative Election Commission, and a declaration that exclusion of members from the voters list without notice is illegal and wrong in law. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-notify the election from the stage of publication of the draft voters list and to proceed with the election to the Managing Committee of the 4 th respondent Society; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer to include the name of members shown in the W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 4 list appended to Ext.P2 objection submitted by the 2 nd petitioner to the preliminary voters list, permitting them to cast their vote; and a declaration that the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer in publication of voters list and all further procedures are vitiated by fraud and procedural irregularity.
2. On 30.11.2018, when this writ petition came for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by Special Messenger was ordered to the 4th respondent Society. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.
3. On 03.12.2018, when this writ petition came for further consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that after considering the objection to the preliminary voters list, the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer published the final voters list by an order dated 23.11.2018. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted further that, the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer shall file a counter affidavit W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 5 explaining the consideration of objections received to the preliminary voters list, including Ext.P2 objection submitted by the 2nd petitioner and others. The learned counsel for the 4 th respondent Society submitted that the counter affidavit of the said respondent shall be placed on record by 05.12.2018. While adjourning the case to 05.12.2018, this Court has made it clear that submission of nomination in terms of Ext.P1 election notification dated 14.11.2018 will be subject to further orders to be passed in this writ petition.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The 4th respondent Society has also filed counter affidavit.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Society.
6. The pleadings and materials on record would show that, election to the Managing Committee of the 4 th respondent Society is scheduled to be held on 16.12.2018, in terms of Ext.P1 W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 6 notification dated 31.10.2018 issued by the 1 st respondent State Co-operative Election Commission. In terms of Ext.P1 election notification, the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer published a preliminary voters list on 17.11.2018. The time limit prescribed in Ext.P1 notification for submitting objections, if any, to the preliminary voters list was from 11.00 am on 17.11.2018 to 5.00 pm on 22.11.2018 and the objections will be considered between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm on 23.11.2018. The final voters list will be published on 24.11.2018 at 11.00 am.
7. According to the petitioners, the 2nd petitioner and four others submitted Ext.P2 objection before the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer to the preliminary voters list. In Ext.P2 objection, it is contended that the name of 1017 eligible members is not included in the preliminary voters list and that, more than 800 persons included in the preliminary voters list, are not persons included in the final voters list published for the previous election. In addition to this, name of more than 100 members, who are no more, is included in the preliminary voters list. Along with Ext.P2 objection, a list of the members, whose W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 7 names are not included in the preliminary voters list, was also enclosed. Ext.P3 is the list of persons, whose names are included in the preliminary voters list illegally and Ext.P4 is a list containing the names of dead persons.
8. The petitioners would contend that the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer had acknowledged the receipt of the list appended to Ext.P2 objection and also Exts.P3 and P4 lists, by affixing his signature, with office seal. The endorsment made on Exts.P2, P3 and P4 would show that the objection to the preliminary voters list along with Exts.P3 and P4 lists were submitted before the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer on 22.11.2018 at 3.30 pm, just before the expiry of the time limit stipulated for submission of objections to the preliminary voters list. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have also produced Ext.P5 list, which is stated to be the list of members, who availed loans, whose names are seen removed from the preliminary and final voters lists. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners have no specific case that Ext.P5 list is one submitted before the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer, W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 8 within the time limit stipulated for submission of objections to the preliminary voters list. It does not also contain any endorsement made by the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer acknowledging the receipt of the same, as in the case of Exts.P2 to P4.
9. Now, the grievance of the petitioners is that, without considering the objections made to the preliminary voters list, the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer published the final voters list on 24.11.2018, without removing the name of dead members and without including the name of 1017 members, who are illegally removed from the preliminary and final voters lists.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is contended that, as per Ext.P1 election notification, the preliminary voters list prepared by the 4th respondent Society was published in the notice board on 17.11.2018 at 7.00 am. The relevant extract of the preliminary voters list is placed on record as Ext.R2(a). The 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objection to the preliminary voters list on 22.11.2018, which was the last day for submission of objections. The 1st and the 3rd petitioners did not submit any objection before the 2 nd respondent. In Ext.P2 W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 9 objection made by the 2nd petitioner, he has stated that 200 dead persons are included in the preliminary voters list and 900 ineligible members, who have no address proof or who are residing outside the area of operation of the 4 th respondent Society are included in that list. The 2 nd petitioner has also stated that 1000 members, who are residing within the area of operation of the Society are excluded from the voters list. However, the 2nd petitioner and others failed to submit any documents to substantiate their contentions. In terms of Ext.P1 election notification, consideration of objections, if any, to the preliminary voters list was from 11.00 am to 1.00 pm, on 23.11.2018, and the final voters list has to be published on 24.11.2018 at 11.00 am. Accordingly, the objections to the preliminary voters list, including that submitted by the 2 nd petitioner and others, were considered on 23.11.2018. A true copy of the hearing note dated 23.11.2018 of the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer is placed on record as Ext.R2(b). After considering the objections received, six persons, included in the list submitted by the 2nd petitioner and others, who were present W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 10 in the hearing with supporting documents, were included in the final voters list. During the course of hearing, the Secretary of the 4th respondent Society has stated that they were excluded from the preliminary voters list by clerical mistake.
11. In the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent Electoral officer would point out that, as per clause 5(A) of Ext.R2(c) bye- laws of the 4th respondent Society, the membership of the Society is given to those, who are either residing in the area of operation of the Society, or working in the area of operation, or who have land in the area of operation and are above 18 years of age and are of sound mind. During the course of enquiry on 23.11.2018, the President and the Secretary of the Society explained that all memberships are given on the basis of Ext.R2(c) bye-laws and the provisions under Section 16 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. After considering the materials on record, the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer rejected the request made by the 2 nd petitioner for exclusion of certain persons from the preliminary voters list and thereafter, published Ext.R2(d) final voters list. Though the 2nd petitioner and others claimed that, more than 200 W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 11 dead members are included in the preliminary voters list, they have not submitted any proof for the same. Ext.P4 list was submitted in the office of the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer at Kothamangalam by 3.15 pm on the last day of filing objections to the preliminary voters list. According to the 2 nd respondent, the persons in Ext.P4 list, in the absence of any evidence, cannot be excluded on the ground that they are no more. Regarding Ext.P3 list containing the name of persons, who are not included in the final voters list published in the previous election conducted in the year 2013, the authorities of the 4 th respondent Society submitted that the elected Managing Committee of 2013 got several complaints that the earlier Administrative Committee, in which the 2nd petitioner was a member, illegally removed 937 members from the voters list. The elected Managing Committee re-admitted those members on the ground that, the Administrative Committee has no authority to include new members or to remove members. As the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer has no authority to remove such persons from the membership of the Society, but the Joint Registrar alone can do W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 12 the same, after due notice and hearing, the objection filed by the 2nd petitioner and others to cancel the decision taken by the Managing Committee of the 4th respondent Society and to remove more than 1000 members from the preliminary voters list was also rejected. The proceedings dated 23.11.2018 of the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer on the objections received to the preliminary voters list is placed on record as Ext.R2(e). In the counter affidavit, the 2nd respondent has stated that a copy of Ext.R2(e) was issued to the 4th respondent Society on 23.11.2018 itself and it was also published in the notice board of the Society. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the 2 nd respondent has stated that the preliminary voters list published in the notice board of the 4th respondent was taken away by some members at the instance of the petitioners and the matter was reported to the Station House Officer, Kothamangalam and Crime No.2318 of 2018 was registered. Later, the petitioners themselves returned the copy of the same to the 2 nd respondent's office, on 17.11.2018 evening.
12. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 13 Society, it is contended that the Managing Committee of the Society, which was elected in the year 2008, was superseded in January, 2013 and an Administrative Committee was appointed with the 2nd petitioner as a member and that Administrative Committee was in office for the period from 16.01.2013 to 30.12.2013. The Administrative Committee, though, not entitled to enroll members, large number of members were enrolled. As per the minutes book of the Society, the Administrative Committee in its meeting held on 08.04.2013 and thereafter admitted members to the Society and the last admission was made on 15.10.2013. The total number of members at the time, when the Administrative Committee assumed office, was 8019. On 15.10.2013, members upto 8350 are seen admitted. The election to the Managing Committee was held on 30.12.2013 and a new Committee assumed office. The members admitted by the Administrative Committee, though not eligible, were included in the preliminary voters list, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C)No.32099 of 2013. This Court directed exercise of the franchise by such members, but the Returning Officer was W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 14 directed to keep the votes in a separate box. Ultimately this Court held that the members admitted by the Administrative Committee have no voting rights and their votes are not counted for declaring the results.
13. In the counter affidavit, the 4 th respondent Society would contend that while preparing the list of eligible voters in the present election, the members admitted by the Administrative Committee, who are found ineligible, were deleted. Based on a complaint received from one Mr.Santhamma Pious (Member No.2361), a Sub Committee was constituted and the Sub Committee conducted a detailed examination of the entire aspect of the matter and submitted a report to the Managing Committee. The Managing Committee, by resolution No.168, resolved to remove the members found ineligible and admitted by the Administrative Committee and such members find no place in the preliminary voters list. Complaints were also received by the Managing Committee that, large number of persons are residing outside the area of operation of the Society and has no transaction with the Society for years together. Such W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 15 persons are retained as members and they are not eligible to exercise their right to vote. The Committee considered this aspect of the matter as well and resolved not to include them in the preliminary voters list. The list of such persons is shown in Ext.P2. It is also pointed out that the 3 rd petitioner, who is the member of Maathirappilly Service Co-operative Bank, which is a similar Society, cannot be a member in a similar type of Society and hence he was not included in the preliminary voters list. The 4th respondent would also point out that, the list of eligible voters was approved by the Managing Committee in its meeting held on 13.10.2018, in which the 2nd petitioner is also a member and he has not raised any objection whatsoever, to the preliminary voters list. Regarding the objection of the petitioners that, more than 800 persons included in the draft voters list are not persons figured in the final voters list for the previous election, the 4 th respondent would submit that those persons are duly admitted by the Managing Committee during the last five years and their admission is in the order. Regarding the contention that, more than 100 persons, who are no more are included in the voters W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 16 list, the 4th respondent would contend that the petitioners have not furnished the details of dead persons or any documents to substantiate the same. Persons, who are found dead, which are within the information of the Society, are not included in the draft voters list or in the final voters list. More than 120 persons, who are no more, are deleted from the list of eligible members entitled to vote, though, their shares have not been transferred and the said fact is well within the knowledge of the 2 nd petitioner. During the previous election, the Administrative Committee deleted large number of eligible members from the voters list without any justification. Almost all members included in Ext.P3 list have transaction in the Society and the persons named in Ext.P3 are not persons removed from membership and they are still retaining membership, who are in fact eligible to retain the membership as well.
14. From the pleadings and materials on record, it could be seen that in terms of Ext.P1 election notification, the 2 nd respondent Electoral Officer published Ext.R2(a) preliminary voters list on 17.11.2018. After considering the objections W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 17 received, including Ext.P2 objection made by the 2 nd petitioner and others, the 2nd respondent Electoral officer published Ext.R2(d) final voters list. Ext.R2(b) hearing note dated 23.11.2018 and also Ext.R2(e) proceedings dated 23.11.2018 would show that the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer published Ext.R2(d) final voters list, after considering the objection received to the preliminary voters list.
15. As already noticed, the 2nd petitioner and others have submitted Ext.P2 objection to the preliminary voters list at 3.15 pm on 22.11.2018, just before the expiry of the time limit prescribed for submission of objections. During the hearing held on 23.11.2018, the 2nd petitioner and others have not chosen to produce any materials whatsoever to substantiate their objections. After considering the objections received and the proof of membership produced by six members (who appeared in person) the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer published Ext.R2(d) final voters list by including the names of those 6 persons in the final voters list.
16. Admittedly, the 1st and 3rd petitioners have not chosen W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 18 to file any objections to Ext.R2(a) preliminary voters list published by the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer, within the time limit stipulated in Ext.P1 notification. As far as the 2 nd petitioner is concerned, he has approached this Court in this writ petition without disclosing the fact that he was one of the members of the Administrative Committee, which was managing the affairs of the 4th respondent Society for the period from 16.01.2013 to 30.12.2013. The pleadings and materials on record would show that there were serious allegations against that Administrative Committee, including grant of membership to various persons and that issue was before this Court in W.P.(C)No.32099 of 2013. This Court ultimately held that the members admitted by the Administrative Committee have no voting right and their votes were not counted for declaring the results. The 2 nd petitioner has also attended the meeting of the Managing Committee of the 4 th respondent Society, which approved the list of eligible members, based on which the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer published Ext.R2(d) final voters list.
17. If the petitioners are having any dispute in connection W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 19 with the election to the Managing Committee of the 4 th respondent Society, which is scheduled to be held on 16.12.2018, in terms of Ext.P1 election notification issued by the 1st respondent State Co-operative Election Commission, such dispute can be raised before the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, by invoking the statutory remedy available under Section 69 of that Act, within one month from the date of election. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Act provides that, any dispute arising in connection with the election, the Board of Management or any Officer of the Society shall also be deemed to be a dispute for the purpose of sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act. Going by the Explanation to clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 69, a dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election. Rule 35A of the Rules deals with the procedure regarding the conduct of election to the committee of Societies by the State Co-operative Election Commission. If that be so, any dispute in W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 20 relation to preparation of final voters list by the Electoral Officer, in exercise of his powers under Rule 35A of the Rules, is a dispute arising in connection with that election, which can be raised before the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, by invoking the statutory remedy available under Section 69 of that Act, within one month from the date of election.
18. In Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha, and another v. State of Maharashtra [(2001) 8 SCC 509], in the context of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Maharashtra Specified Cooperative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971, the Apex Court held that, the preparation of provisional list of voters, filing of objection against the provisional list of voters, consideration of the objection by the Collector and finalising the list of voters, all occur in the Rules which cover the entire process of election. The Rules framed for election of specified Societies are complete code in itself, providing for the entire process of election beginning from the stage of preparation of the W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 21 provisional voters' list, decision on the objection by the Collector, finalisation of electoral rolls, holding of election and declaration of the result of election.
19. In Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath [(2016) 4 SCC 429], in the context of the Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952 the Apex Court held that, whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that, if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by the courts, the election is delayed or cancelled, in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. Therefore, all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.
20. In Jayavarma K. v. State Co-operative Election Commission and others [2017 (2) KHC 190], a Division Bench of this Court held that a writ petition can be entertained W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 22 on well settled parameters in order to correct or smoothen the progress of the election. The instance of rejection of the nomination on totally untenable grounds is an example which could be rectified without upsetting the election calendar. The Division Bench held further that, a writ court should act with circumspection as the inevitable consequence of not holding an election in time is the advent of an Administrator. The appointment of an Administrator, in lieu of an elected Managing Committee, should be the last resort in a democratic process. The salutary principles laid down by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [(2000) 8 SCC 216] should apply fortiori when an alternate remedy well exists under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to question the process of election to a Society registered.
21. Part IXB of the Constitution of India, inserted by the Constitution (97th Amendment) Act, 2011 deals with Co- operative Societies. Article 243ZK inserted by the said Amendment Act deals with election of members of board of Co- operative Societies. As per clause (2) of Article 243ZK, the W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 23 superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to a co- operative society shall vest in such an authority or body, as may be provided by the Legislature of a State, by law. As per the proviso to clause (2) of Article 243ZK, the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the procedure and guidelines for the conduct of such elections.
22. In Reji Thomas v. State of Kerala [2018 (2) KHC 842] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is the mechanism provided by the State Legislature as contemplated under clause (2) of Article 243ZK of the Constitution of India. After referring to the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 69 of the said Act, which provides that no dispute arising in connection with the election of the Board of Management or an officer of the society shall be entertained by the Co-operative Arbitration Court unless it is referred to it within one month from the date of the election, the Apex Court held that, once the mechanism provided under the Statute provides for a time W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 24 schedule for preferring an election petition, in the absence of a provision in the Statute for enlarging the time under any given circumstances, no Court, whether the High Court under Article 226 or the Apex Court under Article 32, Article 136 or Article 142 of the Constitution can extend the period in election matters.
23. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that if the petitioners are having any dispute in relation to the election to the managing committee of the 4th respondent Society scheduled to be held on 16.12.2018 in terms of Ext.P1 notification issued by the 1 st respondent State Co-operative Election Commission, they have to raise such dispute before the Co-operative Arbitration Court by invoking the statutory remedy available under Section 69 of the Act, within a period of one month from the date of election and as such, they cannot approach this Court seeking interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
24. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to raise any dispute arising in connection with the election to the Board of Directors of W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 25 the 4th respondent Society, conducted in terms of Ext.P1 election notification issued by the 1st respondent State Co-operative Election Commission, by invoking the statutory remedy available under Section 69 of the Act, within a period of one month from the date of election.
It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this judgment, touching the merits of the factual contentions, are made for the limited purpose of disposal of this writ petition and the Co-operative Arbitration Court shall proceed with any dispute raised by the petitioners under Section 69 of the Act, in connection with the election to the Board of Directors of the 4 th respondent Society, untrammelled by any such observations.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE yd W.P.(C)No.38857 of 2018 26 PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DATED 31/10/2018 PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 14/11/2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AND OTHER MEMBERS ALONG WITH LIST OF 1017 MEMBERS.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT VOTERS LIST.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST CONTAINING THE NAMES OF DEAD PERSONS SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME OF THE
MEMBERS WHO HAVE AVAILED LOANS AND WHOSE
NAMES ARE SEEN REMOVED FROM THE DRAFT AND
FINAL VOTERS LIST.
RESPONDENTS' EXTS:
EXT.R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF
PRELIMINARY VOTERS LIST
EXT.R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED
23.11.2018 OF THE ELECTORAL OFFICER.
EXT.R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF CLAUSE 5(A) OF THE BYE-LAW
A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FINAL
EXT.R2(D) VOTERS LIST
EXT.R2(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.23.11.18.
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE