IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16961 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.A.AUGUSTINE, MEMBER NO.2860, CHEMBAKASSERIL, CHEENIKUZHI.P.O, UDUMBANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, THE UDUMBANOOR SERVICE CO-OP.BANK LTD.NO. E 93, UDUMBANOOR. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, THE UDUMBANOOR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD.NO.E 93, UDUMBANOOR. 3. THE UDUMBANOOR SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. NO.E 93, UDUMBANOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1, R2 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16961 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, a member of the third respondent society, has filed this writ petition, alleging that he has been illegally kept out of the voters list for the ensuing election to the committee of the third respondent. His case is that the draft voters list, which was published in the notice board of the third respondent, was removed by certain persons and that the date fixed for placing objections to the draft list was a day of hartal and the petitioner could not either see the draft list or place objections to it. Having regard to the nature of the contentions, an interim order was issued on 6.6.2008 directing, among other things, that a nomination paper shall also be issued to the petitioner provisionally. The secretary of the third respondent was directed to come on record with an affidavit, stating whether the petitioner's name appears in the membership book of the third respondent. WPC.16961/08 Page numbers 2. Though a counter affidavit is promptly filed by the third respondent, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent stated that he had not seen the order dated 6.6.2008 and it is therefore, that there is no specific statement in the counter affidavit of the third respondent that the petitioner's name appears in the membership register. He states that the petitioner's name appears in the membership register. 3. Learned senior Government Pleader points out that, as of now, she has specific instructions that the third respondent has its head quarters at Udumbannoor and has two branches, one at Cheenikuzhy and the other at Thattakuzha and that only the draft voters list published in Cheenikuzhy office was stolen, in relation to which, a crime has been registered. The third respondent's counter affidavit discloses that the Electoral Officer received 356 objections to the draft list and a hearing was conducted on 4.6.2008 at the head quarters. WPC.16961/08 Page numbers 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a resident of Cheenikuzhy and therefore, he had approached only the Cheenikuzhy branch of the society, the assertion in the second paragraph of the writ petition is that the petitioner contacted the secretary and was told that his name would be there in the draft list. What ever that be, the fact remains that the voters list was published in the head office and in the two branches. The petitioner does not dispute this. He states that he aspired to contest in the election. The necessary vigilance expected of such a person does not persuade this Court to hold that the petitioner could stand satisfied by attempting to peruse the draft voters list in the Cheenikuzhy branch, which, admittedly, was stolen. Not only that, the draft list was stolen from Cheenikuzhy office, going by the pleadings of the petitioner, on or before 31.5.2008 and the time fixed for objections to the draft list was till 4.6.2008. Therefore, obviously, the petitioner could have had as much ways of reading the draft list which was published in the head office or in the other branches of the third respondent. WPC.16961/08 Page numbers In view of what is stated above, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to have statutory remedies in relation to the election in question. It is further directed that any nomination paper issued to the petitioner shall not be utilised for the election. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.9/6.