IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2009 / 3RD ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15972 of 2009(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.K.MURALI, KAVINKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, NEDUMAN P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NEDUMAN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2720, NEDUMAN P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA-691 556. 3. ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. UNIT INSPECTOR/ELECTORAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. NEDUMAN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2720, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMAN P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.15972 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner is one of the members of the 5th respondent Society. According to the petitioner the President of the Society took charge on 9.12.2008 and during the period from 9.12.2008 to 27.4.2009, 779 new members were enrolled into the society. It is stated that on 5.5.2009, coming to know of the aforesaid enrollment petitioner filed an application before the Secretary of the Society, invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act, seeking disclosure of the details about the newly enrolled members. According to the petitioner, the application was kept pending and while so by Ext.P2 dated 25.5.2009 election to the Society was notified to be held on 26.9.2009. Later under the cover of Ext.P3 dated 4.6.2009, a list of newly enrolled members WP(c).N.15972/09 2 were furnished to the petitioner. On that date itself preliminary voters list was published and objections were to be filed till 8.6.2009. Petitioner submits that, he filed Ext.P4 objection before the Electoral Officer pointing out the ineligibility of 439 members and requesting for their removal and as there was no response, immediately thereafter, on 9.6.2009, this writ petition was filed. Objections were scheduled to be considered on 10.6.2008 and according to the petitioner notice was not issued to him. Without hearing him, on considering the objections raised, final voters list was published on 10.6.2009 itself. It is at that stage the writ petition is coming up for hearing and the prayer made by the petitioner is for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 for removal of the ineligible members. 2. Counter affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 5. The 3rd respondent would submit that not only that there is no merit in the objections raised by the petitioner but also that on receipt of Ext.P4 objection, petitioner was personally intimated about the hearing on 10.6.2009 and WP(c).N.15972/09 3 that he refused to attend the hearing. It is stated that objections received including that of the petitioner were considered and voters list was finalized and was published on 10.6.2009. It is stated that, as the electoral process has commenced, this court should not interfere with the same and the course available to the petitioner is to pursue the statutory remedies. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, they are justifying the admission of 779 members. According to them in terms of the bye-laws, the enrollment of the members was perfectly in order and the objections raised by the petitioner are totally unsustainable. They also contend that the final voters list having been published this writ petition is devoid of any merit and are relying on the judgment of this court in Subramanian V. Devikulam Taluk Plantation Workers Co-Op. Society (2004(3) KLT short note 105 case NO.145. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the respective counsel. Although objection was filed by the petitioners against the preliminary voters list, fact remains WP(c).N.15972/09 4 that the final voters list has now been published. If that be so, at this stage this court will not be justified in interfering with the process of election. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner has raised objections regarding the enrollment of 439 out of 779 members admitted during the period from 9.12.2009 to 27.4.2009, once the process of election is over, if the petitioner wants to seek statutory remedy, an arrangement should be made so that his remedy will not be rendered futile. Therefore I think, in the facts of this case, it is only appropriate to direct that the respondents shall provide a separate ballot box for the 439 members. Although voting will be conducted as above, it will be open to the Electoral Officer to count the votes and declare the results of the election, reckoning the votes of these 439 members as well. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).N.15972/09 5