IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7262 of 2008(M) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- S.M.ABDUL HAKEEM ,AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED ISMAIL, SAHIB RAWUTHAR HOUSE PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL ASSOCIATIN REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, T.A.SHAIK USMAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.T.K.ABDUL RAZZAK,RESIDING AT MUSLIM HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,PUDUNAGARAM,PALAKKAD. 2. K.J.MOHAMMED SHERIEF AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.JAMAL MOHAMMED SECRETARY OF MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,RESIDING AT POLICE STREET, PUDUNAGARAM,PALAKKAD. 3. M.M.FAROOK,AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMADALI, MANAGER MUSLIM HIGH SCHOOL RUN BY MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,RESIDING AT PILATHOOR, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD. 4. PROF.AKBAR AGED 54 YEARS,FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN RETURNING OFFICER OF MUSLIM EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL ASSOCIATION,RESIDING AT NEAR NEW THEATER, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD. WPC NO.7262/08 -2- 5. ABDUL JABBAR, AGED 73 YEARS,S/O.MOHAMMED RAWUTHAR RESIDING AT ANAMATH HOUSE,SATHRAVALLARAM, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD. 6. K.MOHAMMED THAMEEM AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER RESIDING AT THAIKKA VEEDU,TB STREET, PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD. 7. K.M.UBAIDULLA,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAED KUTTY,RESIDING AT ,KANAYANNA HOUSE, ISWARYA COLONY,PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD. 8. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY D.E.O. PALAKKAD. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 7262 OF 2008 M = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed against the 1st respondent. From the averments in the writ petition itself it can be seen that the 1st respondent is purely a private organisation. May be it is running an aided school but that does not alter the character of the 1st respondent. 2. In this writ petition the dispute is regarding the election that is now scheduled to be held. In my view, a writ petition is not maintainable against the 1st respondent and this issue is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tekraj v. Union of India {AIR 1988 SC 469}. The writ petition is only to be dismissed. I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-