IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29212 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.GABRIAL, SANAL BHAVAN, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.SUKUMARAN NAIR, KUMAR BHAVAN, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.VIJAYAN, UMAGALMANNADI VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. D.JAYARAJ, KODOMPAZHANJI VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. C.STANLEY, KALATHUVILA VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. V.KRISHNAMOORTHY, VISHWAVILASOM BUNGLOW, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. M.NIRMALA, B.N.BHAVAN, PULININNAVILA, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. N.SELVAN, VISKHAM HOUSE, VARUVILA, NOCHIYOOR, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. SELVAN, PLANKALA VEEDU, VLATHANKARA, CHENKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SRI.G.SAKTHIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE RETURNING OFFICER, VALATHANKARA KSHEEROLPATHAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD.NO.T.48 (D) APCOS/DIARY EXTENSION OFFICER, PARASSALA. GOVT. PLEADER K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.29212 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are members of the Valathankara Ksheerolpathaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd., T.48, Parassala. Election to the managing committee of the Sangham has been declared. The petitioners claim to owe allegiance to the Congress Party. The petitioners state that in order to decide the candidates of the party for the election, a meeting of members owing allegiance to the party was convened prior to 14.10.2009. No consensus could be arrived at in the meeting till the day before the last date for filing nominations. Their discussions were going on. The 1st petitioner had filled up the nomination papers and kept the same inside the table in the room in his house where the discussions were going on. On 14.10.2009, which was the last date for filing nomination papers, when the 1st petitioner reached his house at 10.30 a.m. it was found that the nomination papers kept in the room were stolen. The 1st petitioner is stated to have immediately filed a complaint before the Parassala Police Station and also requested the returning officer for extending the time for filing nomination papers. But extension of time was not granted. The petitioners now submit that since there was no opposition to others who have submitted nominations, who are the rivals in the party itself, they are likely to be declared elected. The petitioners, therefore, seek 2 the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to grant time to the petitioners to submit their application and received (sic) the same when it is submitted; ii) to declare that in view of the peculiar circumstances the respondent is bound to grant time to the petitioners to submit their nomination and also receive the same when submitted; iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to informed (sic) the petitioners the time within which they should submit the nomination, and also direct the respondent to issue fresh nomination paper to the petitioners; iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction allowing the petitioners to submit the nominations within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court and direct the respondent to issue the nomination papers and received (sic) the same; v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent not to proceed in the election procedures until the nomination papers of the petitioners are received;” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. The petitioners have no allegation whatsoever against the returning officer. They have also no complaint about anything which happened in the presence of the returning officer. They complain about something which happened in the 1st petitioner's house, for which the returning officer or the society cannot be made liable. That being so, I do not think that I can entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3