IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 5353 of 2008(K) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 127/2007 IN OS.297/2006 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ N.V.NARAYANAN NAIR, SARASWATHI BHAVANAM, MYNAGAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SREE MANNOORKAVU DEVIKSHETHRAM, MYNAGAPPALLY SOUTH, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2. VISWANATHAN PILLAI, VISWABHAVANAM, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 3. ADVOCATE S.REGHUKUMAR, THE RETURNING OFFICER, MANOORKAVU DEVIKSHETHRAM, MYNAGAPPALLY SOUTH MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 4. KARUNAKARA PILLAI, MADATHIL PADINJETTATHIL, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 5. K.A.AJAYAN, KADAKKARAVADAKKATHIL VEEDU, KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 6. K.RAVI, SREEHARI (KINARUVILAYIL) MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, MYNAGAPPALLY SOUTH MURI. BY B.KRISHNAMANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.5353 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This writ petition is preferred against the common order passed in I.A.No.127, 128 and 417/2007 in O.S.No.297/2006. The subject matter relates to the elections to the Managing Committee of Sree Mannoorkavu Devi temple which is the first defendant in the suit. Though the election was conducted since there arose some dispute there was a direction to keep two seats vacant and the whole subject matter revolves on that question. 2. The nomination of the 1st plaintiff in the suit was rejected on the ground that his family name does not tally with the real name in the final voters list and therefore he was not entitled to contest. The court below found that as per the rules before finalising the voters list a draft voters list has to be published and objections is to be called for within one week and thereafter it has to be finalised before the election process starts. It has come out in evidence that in the draft voters list published the name of the 1st plaintiff was properly shown and W.P.(C) No.5353/2008 2 therefore there was no opportunity or necessity for him to challenge the correctness of the same. Unfortunately, by some mistake in the final voters list, his name house is figured in a different way. Therefore, the court held that he was not responsible for the mistake and therefore held that the rejection of his nomination is improper and thereafter directed the 4th respondent to count the votes and publish the results. I cannot find fault with the said result. 3. The crucial point the counsel argued in this case is regarding the view taken by the court below on the second plaintiff's election. Unfortunately, the 2nd plaintiff died during the pendency of the proceedings. Though he was a candidate in the election and votes were exercised in his favour, on account of the litigation it did not reach finality and before it could reach he had left the world thereby making an opportunity for others to question regarding the procedure to be adopted. The learned counsel before me argued since he has contested the election and he has secured votes, but died before counting it could not prevent the court from counting the votes to consider whether he has won the election or not and if he has won the election then naturally there cannot be any other person to step into his shoes. W.P.(C) No.5353/2008 3 This argument is totally acceptable in the case of election with respect to a particular seat or post. What is done in these type of cases where the administration of temple is involved is to call for elections jointly for 15 or 16 as the case may be for which lot of people would file their nominations. Election is conducted and the successful candidate is decided on the basis of number of votes secured by them. Unfortunately, in this case before it reached that state the court directed two seats to be kept vacant and therefore the result of the entire seats for which elections had been held had not been declared at all. On account of the death of the 2nd plaintiff according to me there need not be further election for the reason that the 2nd plaintiff gets removed from the pole scenario on account of his death and therefore, for the vacancy that arises the man who gets more number of votes will have to be placed therein and thereby the entire committee can be selected. 4. In short for example, suppose there are 40 candidates contesting the election for 15 seats and the result of 13 seats are already declared and 2 seats are reserved on account of litigation then one of the person dies, naturally, the person who is next in the seniority of votes is entitled to succeed for the reason that the W.P.(C) No.5353/2008 4 election process is not completed in total. It should have been totally different, if the election process is completed and the results declared, then a fresh election may have to be held for the reason that the successful number of candidates and their names have been published and declared. In this case such a contingency had not arisen and therefore I agree with the view taken by the learned Munsiff and therefore there is no ground to interfere with the decision rendered. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps