IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2008 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5875 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- V.NARAYANANKUTTY, SON OF MANIKUTTY AMMA, VETTIYATTIL HOUSE, P.O.NADATHARA, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER/NADATHARA UNIT INSPECTOR, NADATHARA FARMERS BANK LIMITED NO. 3499, NADATHARA, TRICHUR (OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) AYYANTHOL, TRICHUR. 3. NADATHARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 3499, NADATHARA, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR. R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN R1, R2 & R4 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 5875 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a candidate in the election in question has filed this writ petition challenging voters list. Two issues are raised. 2. First is that around 300 to 400 names of persons who are already dead have been included. The Learned Senior Government Pleader submits on instructions that there was no objection to the voters list within the time frame fixed in the notification and in accordance with rules. With no objections being raised as to the inclusion or exclusion, the petitioner cannot make out a legal grievance. That apart, the petitioner himself being a candidate, he or his election agents will be entitled to raise objections on the question of identity of any person who would come to cast the vote and thereby prevent any impersonation in the name of a dead person, while voting. 3. Secondly, but more importantly, the allegation is regarding WPC No. 5875 OF 2008 2 the preparation of the voters list on the basis of the two provisions in the bye laws. The bye laws provide for the two members of the committee to be elected generally, for the classification of the entire area of operation of the Society into 8 wards, geographically. Hence, without reference to any particular geographical ward as such, preparation of voters list is prescribed. It is also prescribed in the by laws that notification shall be published identifying the territorial limits of the 8 wards. But, the voter is not intended to choose any representative in relation to any particular ward to which he belongs, though a candidate and the person who proposes and seconds the notification have to be from a particular ward. In this scenario it is sufficient if there is a comprehensive voters list and a delimitation notification regarding the geographical limits of the different wards. It is up to any candidate or individual to raise objections as to violation of any prescription regarding nominee, candidature etc., with reference to the classification of the area of operation of the Society into wards. The bye laws do not provide or envisage classification of voters on WPC No. 5875 OF 2008 3 the basis of wards. This is also unnecessary because, apart from identifying the candidate and the person who nominates him and the person who seconds the nomination, the ward wise classification of voters is irrelevant. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE ttb WPC No. 5875 OF 2008 4