IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38150 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSHYKUMAR A.C., S/O. CHERIAN, EDAPPILLYKUNNEL, BAISONVALLY P.O., MUTTUKADU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR/DAIRY EXTENSION OFFICER, ADIMALI, MUTTUKAD MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY MUTTUKAD, IDUKKI. 3. THE MUTTUKAD MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, MUTTUKAD, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADDL.4. THE RETURNING OFFICER/UNIT DAIRY FARM INSPECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT UNIT, ADIMALI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 6.1.09 ON I.A.NO.204/09) R1, R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.38150 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner filed nomination for election to the committee of the third respondent, a milk producers' co- operative society. One complaint is that Ext.P1 submitted to the first respondent Deputy Director, exercising the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, has not been considered. The contents of Ext.P1 are essentially regarding excessive exercise and mal-administration, including unlawful induction of persons during the tenure of the administrator. Pending this writ petition, which was filed after issuance of the notification for election, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 objections to the voters list and placed it before this Court along with I.A.No.204/09. While I am not inclined to order impleadment as sought for in that I.A., it was ordered on 23.1.2009 that the election be conducted by receiving votes cast by any person mentioned in Ext.P2 in a separate ballot box. That has been done. Eight persons mentioned in Ext.P2 WPC.38150/08 Page numbers have cast their votes. Those votes have been received in a separate ballot box. 2.The allegations against those 8 persons, as made out in Ext.P2, are regarding their ineligibility to continue as voters because of their alleged non-involvement in the milk producing process. The allegation is either that those individuals do not have a cow or that they have not measured milk to the required standard in terms of the byelaws. It is also alleged that erroneous entires have been made to show excess measuring of milk during the term of the administrator. These objections necessarily show that those 8 persons are included as members in the membership register and the question would be as to whether they were eligible to vote. Even as regards one among them, the question would be as to whether he was entitled to contest the election. These are matters best left for the consideration of the arbitrator in terms of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which is an efficacious alternate remedy. Particularly when the votes cast WPC.38150/08 Page numbers by those 8 persons enumerated in Ext.P2 are in a separate ballot box, there is no reason why the petitioners will not have adequate opportunity to bring on record the reasons for the dispute. 3. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is ordered preserving the right of the petitioners to challenge the election, if aggrieved. The Returning Officer is directed to declare the results by including also the votes of persons enumerated in Ext.P2 and treating them as eligible to vote and even contest the election. After declaration of result, this direction will not stand in the way of the petitioners prosecuting any election dispute before the arbitrator. It is further directed that the first respondent will take up Ext.P1, consider the same and decide on it after hearing the necessary parties within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. WPC.38150/08 Page numbers 4.The results made available to this Court for perusal in sealed cover is returned to the learned Government Pleader in sealed cover, after perusal, so that the Returning Officer can declare the result as afore-directed. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.