IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22552 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ V.K.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 60, RESIDING AT 40(5/183), DARSANA-2, KADAYANICADU, VELLAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE RETURNING OFFICER, THE VELLAVOOR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK, REG.NO.4300, KADAYANICADU P.O. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE VELLAVOOR SERVICE CO-OP.BANK, REG.NO.4300, KADAYANICADU P.O. ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 22552 OF 2009 (L) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The nomination submitted by the petitioner for election to the Board of Directors of the Vellavoor Service Co-operative Bank has been rejected. The reason for rejection, according to the petitioner, is that he is a defaulter. Petitioner's case is that though he was the honorary Secretary of the Society for one year during 1970's, such assumption of charge was following the suspension of a paid Secretary by name Sri.V.K.Karunakaran Nair. It is stated that it is on the mistaken impression that the petitioner is the aforesaid Sri.V.K.Karunakaran Nair, who had committed defaults, his nomination has been rejected. 2. Thus, while the petitioner contends that it is on the mistaken identity that his nomination is rejected, learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter and submits that the petitioner had acted as the honorary Secretary of the Society during the period from 11/10/74 to 30/9/75. It is stated that it was during this period that default of Rs.4,365/- was committed by the petitioner. It is also pointed out that for this WPC 22552/09 :2 : very reason, his nomination was rejected during the year 1999. Thus, while the petitioner contends that it is the case of mistaken identity, learned Government Pleader based on the instructions received from the Returning Officer submits otherwise. This being a disputed question of fact, the correctness of which cannot be decided in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, leaving open the contentions and the remedies available, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp