IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 17721 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- SUJATHA C.C., W/O.RAJAGOPALAN, (MEMBERSHIP NO.9672, MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F 1650, MUNDUR), KUNNIL VEEDU, KAYARAM KODAM, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN SMT.AYSHA RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O.RAMACHANDRAN, (MEMBERSHIP NO.3542, MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1650, MUNDUR) CHUKKINI, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F 1650, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER, MUNDUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F 1650, MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SENIOR GOVT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R3 & R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.17721 OF 2008(I) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner and first respondent are stated to be rival candidates for an election scheduled tomorrow to the committee of the second respondent as against a vacancy earmarked for woman. The petitioner did not object the acceptance of the nomination of the first respondent. Now, the contention is that after the acceptance of nomination of the first respondent, the petitioner has reached at material which will show that the first respondent was in default to the second respondent and that the first respondent had suppressed such information from the returning officer. The nomination paper having been accepted without any objection and because the election is to be held tomorrow, I do not find it appropriate for this Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. This is all the more so, because the disqualification of a candidate can be made as the subject W.P.(C) No.17721/2008 - 2 - matter of an election dispute in appropriate cases, in terms of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise any election dispute and without prejudice to the contentions of the parties, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/13/6/2008