IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23272 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. MATHEW MATHAI, THEKKUMALA HOUSE, PANDIPARA P.O., KAMAKSHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 2. BIJU T.N., NEDUMCHERIYIL HOUSE, PANDIPARA P.O., IDUKKI. 3. FRANCIS THOMAS, KOLLIKOLAVIL HOUSE, PANDIPARA P.O., IDUKKI. 4. JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, MAROTTIMOOTTIL, PANDIPARA P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.PKM.HASSAN SRI.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR(GENERAL), CO-OP. SOCIETIES, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 3. ELECTORAL OFFICER, THANKAMANY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK, HAVING OFFICIAL ADDRESS AS ASST. REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES(GENERAL), UDUMBANCHOLA, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. THANKAMANY SERVICE CO-OP. BANK, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THANKAMANY, IDUKKI. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.23272 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Election to the Board of Directors of the 4th respondent Society was notified as per Ext.P4. Preliminary voters list was published on 30/07/2009, and objection was to be filed by 03/08/2009, and final voters list was to be published on 04/08/2009. 2. The 2nd petitioner filed Ext.P5 objection to the Preliminary voters list enclosing Ext.P6, a list of 4147 members of the 4th respondent Society, contending that they being residents outside the present area of operation of the Society are ineligible to be included in the voters list. The Electoral Officer in Ext.P8 order, stated that after conducting enquiry, he has published the final voters list after removing 110 ineligible persons, who were included in the preliminary voters list. In so far as Ext.P7 request made by the 3rd petitioner to refix the wards is concerned, by Ext.P9 the 3rd respondent informed him that he does not have the power. It is praying for the exclusion of the remaining persons in Ext.P6 list WP(C) No.23272/2009 -2- from the final voters list, that this writ petition is filed. 3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submit that on receipt of Ext.P5 objection filed by the 2nd petitioner to the preliminary voters list, the list enclosed was forwarded to the Society, and its comments were obtained. It is stated that the comments were examined, and prima facie it was found that except 110 persons, who were ultimately removed, rest were eligible to be included in the final voters list. According to him, it was thereupon that final voters list was published. 4. In so far as the objection raised in Ext.P5 that 4147 persons were from outside the area of operation of the 4th respondent Society is concerned, on instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that after the incorporation of the 4th respondent Society, in 1974 and 1976 other Societies were incorporated. He points out that the bye-laws of the 4th respondent Society have not been amended reducing the area of operation. As a result, the members, who now reside within the area of operation of the subsequently incorporated Societies are still continuing as members of the 4th respondent Society and that going by the bye- WP(C) No.23272/2009 -3- laws, those members are well within the area of operation of the 4th respondent Society. It is pointed out that if at all, they have any ineligibility, such ineligibility is only in relation to the membership that they have obtained in the subsequently incorporated Societies, and not in the 4th respondent Society. This contention of the learned Government Pleader is fully endorsed by the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent Society also. 5. In my view, the scope of enquiry that is permissible for the Electoral Officer to consider the objection to the preliminary voters list, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar (1996(1) KLT 285), is not a roving enquiry, but only a summary one. In this case, such a summary enquiry has been held, and the Electoral Officer has passed his order, and on facts as noticed above, I see nothing objectionable in the order so passed. 6. In so far as the other complaint of the learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. regarding the pendency of Ext.P1 is concerned, it is stated that prior to the declaration of the election, the 2nd petitioner had already approached the Registrar of Co- WP(C) No.23272/2009 -4- operative Societies by filing Ext.P1 complaint about the ineligibility of several members of the 4th respondent Society. It is stated that though by Ext.P3, a hearing was also given by the Assistant Registrar pursuant to the orders of the 1st respondent, final orders in this respect have not been passed. 7. Taking into account the above submission, I dispose of the writ petition directing the Assistant Registrar to expedite orders on Ext.P1. It is clarified that the aforesaid direction will not stand in the way of the election process being continued and completed based on the final voters list now published. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg