IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28847 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THOMAS P.OOMMEN, S/O.MAMMEN OOMMEN, PALLUVIRUTHIL, NIRANAM, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM P.O. PIN 689 620. 2. K.K.KOCHUKUNJU, KATTITHARA VEEDU, PARUMALA P.O. 3. SHYAM MOHAN, S/O.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, CHANDRAMATHY BHAVAN, PARUMALA P.O. 4. P.P.JOHN, S/O.PHILIP, PUTHENPURAYIL, PARUMALA P.O. 5. K.T.BENJAMIN, S/O.K.C.THOMAS, KINATTUKARA VEEDU, NIRANAM P.O. 6. UDAYABHANU T.K., S/O.LATE THANKAPPAN, KOYICHIRAYIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM P.O. 7. GEORGEKUTTY, LAHAMATTAKKAL, KADAPRA- MANNAR P.O. 8. MOLYKUTTY ABRAHAM, W/O.P.G.ABRAHAM, KIZHAKKE THEVARKUZHY, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM P.O. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.ANZAR BASHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE RETURNING OFFICER, KADAPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.186, NIRANAM UNIT, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE ELECTRAL OFFICER, KADAPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.186, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY GENERAL, THIRUVALLA. 3. STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 033. 4. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KADAPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.186, VALANJAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA PIN-689104 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C. NO. 28847/2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF RELEVANT PART OF VOTERS LIST. EXT.P2 ELECTION NOTIFICATION. EXT.P3 COMPLAINT DT. 5-10-2009. EXT.P4 RECEIPT OF EXT. P3. EXT.P5 POSTAL RECEIPT DT. 5-10-2009. EXT.P6 PAPER REPORT DT. 6-10-2009. EXT.P7 PETITION DT. 7-10-2009. EXT.P8 COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P9 ORDER IN O.P.NO. 449/08 DT. 6-6-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 28847 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aspirants for contesting the election to the managing committee of the Kadapra Co-operative Bank Ltd., No. 186, Thiruvalla. The election was fixed for 17-10-2009. The last date for submitting nomination papers was 5-10-2009. According to the petitioners, on 5-10-2009, when the petitioners approached the returning officer for filing nomination papers, there was a big commotion in the Bank, as a result of which the petitioners were prevented from submitting their nomination papers. They also allege that some persons owing allegiance to the opposite camp seized the nomination papers from the petitioners and destroyed the same. They immediately filed Ext. P3 complaint before the Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla, who, despite acknowledging the petition by Ext. P4, has not taken an further steps. The petitioners therefore submitted Ext. P7 representation before the returning officer, which was also not attended to. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 & 2 to receive nomination papers of the petitioners. (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 4 to dispose of Ext. P7 petition forthwith and till then to adjourn the election proceedings as per Ext. P2.” 2. The then returning officer, who was in charge, who was later relieved of the charge on being transferred, has filed an affidavit stating that petitioners 1, 6 and 8 had filed nomination papers on that W.P.C. No. 28847/09 -: 2 :- day, which were accepted by the returning officer. However, the nomination papers were not accompanied by the requisite deposit and therefore the nomination papers were rejected. The returning officer has also stated that while he was in charge of the conduct of the election, he had not noticed in any untoward incident in the vicinity of the society as alleged by the petitioners. 3. The petitioners would contend that the petitioners 1, 6 and 8 had, in fact, paid the deposit for which no receipt was issued. 4. I am of opinion that these are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in a writ petition. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners lies in filing an election petition in the matter after the election. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/