IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5716 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. K.C.RAPHEAL, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 48 YEARS, HEAD CRAFTMAN, BADGE NO.17/9016, UTILITY DEPARTMENT, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION, FACT UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. P.P.JOSEPH, S/O.PAULOSE, AGED 44 YEARS, RIGGER, BADGE NO.17/9016, MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, UDYOGAMANDAL DIVISION, FACT UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. FACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.2700, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SENIOR INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ELOOR UNIT, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), NORTH PARAVUR APPOINTED AS THE RETURNING OFFICER, SENIOR INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ELOOR UNIT. 3. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), NORTH PARAVUR. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN - R2, ADV. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR - R1, SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR - R1, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI - R1, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS - R1, SRI.ANIL D. NAIR - R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5716/2008-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE R.3. ON 11/02/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION DTD. 14/01/2008 PUBLISHED BY THE R.1. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE UDYOGAMANDAL POSTAL AUTHORITIES SHOWING THE DISPATCH OF INTIMATION OF ELECTION IN THE YEAR 2003. //TRUE COPY// prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.5716 of 2008-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners are employees in the Udyogamandal Division of FACT. They are members of the first respondent society. They contended that they were not given statutory notice as contemplated by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules in relation to an election. By an interim order, the votes polled in the election were ordered to be kept in safe custody. 2.The first respondent society has filed a counter affidavit. It states, among other things, that the notices issued to the employees in the Udyogamandal Division were returned with the endorsement regarding insufficiency of address, though the procedure adopted was the same which was applied during the previous years. It is also WP(C)5716/2008 -: 2 :- pointed out in that counter affidavit of the first respondent that the office of the society where there was a public notice affixed, is of such proximity that there could be no case of insufficiency of notice. It is further pointed out that at least one among the members of the society who are employed in the Udyogamandal Division was a candidate in the election. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit asserting that notices, as a matter of fact, were issued and the statutory provisions have been complied with. 3.Having regard to the aforesaid, I do not deem it that this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the election to the co-operative societies, particularly when disputed questions of facts regarding service of notice etc. and the further question as to whether absence of any such notice would vitiate the election, are all matters that could be WP(C)5716/2008 -: 3 :- considered in appropriate proceedings as and when an election dispute is raised. For the foregoing reasons, the interim order dated 19-2-2008 is vacated paving way for the official respondents to count the votes in accordance with law and declare the results and carry on with all follow up action, leaving the petitioners liberty to challenge the election, if so advised, before the appropriate forum in terms of the statute. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/040608