IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3683 of 2011(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SREEKUMAR V., KAKKANIKKARA, VATTAKARIKKAKAM (P.O), PANGODE PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT. 2. ANI M., AMATHARA THADATHARIKATH HOUSE, MYLAMOOD (P.O), PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. RETURNING OFFICER, BHARATHANOOR PATTIKAJATHI, SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.704, BHARATHANOOR (P.O), VIA PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.PIN- 695 616 2. BHARATHANOOR PATTIKAJATHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.704, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BHARATHANOOR (P.O), VIA PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.PIN- 695 616 R1 BY ADV. SRI. P.P.THAJUDDIN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3683 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 and to declare that the election to the managing committee of the second respondent scheduled to be held on 5.2.2011 is illegal and improper since it is not in confirmity with the procedure prescribed under rule 35 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. The petitioners have not produced a copy of the election notification. Without that notification, this Court is not in a position to decide whether it is one issued illegally and improperly and is not in confirmity with the procedure prescribed in rule 35 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, 1969. Therefore the second relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. The first prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3. Ext.P3 is a letter dated 21.1.2010 informing the petitioners that their nominations have been rejected as they were in default to the second respondent society. Ext.P3 is not an order rejecting the nominations. It is only a letter informing the petitioners of the fact that their nominations have been rejected. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their nominations, WPC No.3683/2011 2 their remedy is to challenge the election of the returned candidates in other appropriate proceedings. Further the nominations were rejected on 21.1.2011, the date fixed for scrutiny. The election is scheduled to be held tomorrow. If at this stage, this Court were to interfere with the poll, it will cause loss to the Society. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.3683/2011 3 WPC No.3683/2011 4