IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 22188 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.C.NARAYANAN, S/O.SANKU, AGED 66 YEARS, POIKAYIL HOUSE, AMBALAKKAVALA, KATTAPPANA SOUTH PO KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KATTAPPANA RURAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OP.SOCIE TY LTD, NO.1.591, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALAYATHANAL BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, KATTAPPANA IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. ARBITRATION AND EXECUTION INSPECTOR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (G)UDUMBANCHOLA, NEDUMKANDOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 22188 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext. P1 notification of election issued 9.6.2010, published in the Mangalam daily mainly alleging defect in the voters list and in turn seeks to stay the election notified to be held on 18.7.2010. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, the petitioner wanted to contest the election by submitting nomination. The last date for submitting the nomination was on 6.7.2010. But the nomination of the petitioner was not accepted for the reason that, his name was not included in the voter's list, published in connection with the election. It is contended by the petitioner that, after the due date for submitting of the nomination, another voters' list was issued, as borne by Ext. P4, wherein the petitioner's name was included. This by itself shows that, the omission of the petitioner's name to be included in Ext. P2 was only a mistake at the hands of authorities concerned, whereby the right of the petitioner to contest the election has been defeated, which hence is sought to be intercepted by this Court. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. W.P. (C) No. 22188 of 2010 : 2 : 4. It is true that, in Ext. P2 voters' list, after the serial No.1485 (appearing in the running page 62), the next entry is from No. 1493; whereas in Ext. P4 voters' list, after the entry in respect of No. 1487 (at running page 184), the next entry (at running page 185) correctly begins with Nos. 1488 to 1495 and onwards. The entries from 1486 to 1492 are conspicuously absent in Ext. P2 voters' list. This being the position, the election proceedings are liable to be interfered by this Court, submits the learned counsel. 5. The law is now well settled that, once the process of election is started, it is not proper to intercept the same. It is very much evident from Ext. P1 notification itself, which was published more than a month ago, that, the objection if any, in respect of the voters' list was to be submitted on or before 18.6.2010 till 5 P.M. and that final voters' list would be published on the next day. It was also made clear in the said notification that, true copy of the voters' list could be procured by the parties concerned, on payment of the prescribed charges from 20.06.2010. The fact remains that, the petitioner has not chosen to pursue any such rights, if he were aggrieved in any manner. It is only on the eve of election, that the petitioner chose to approach this Court by filing the Writ Petition. W.P. (C) No. 22188 of 2010 : 3 : 6. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it as a fit case to call for interference and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, this will be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the election, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, availing the remedy as provided under the Statute. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd