IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25468 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.118/2008 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. JAMES PIN HERO, AGED 49 YEARS, ADVOCATE, S/O.MANUAL PIN HERO, CHENNIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KORATTY P.O., THRISSUR. 2. ANDREW LOUIS, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.ESTIVE LOUIS, STEEV VILLA, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-15. BY ADVS. MR.RAJU JOSEPH, MR.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF ANGLO INDIAN ASSOCIATIONS (REG.NO.9/53), PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-15, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KEVIN D'ROZARIO, S/O.LATE VINCENT D'ROZARIO, HOUSE NO.XI/5000, HIGH COURT ROAD, KOCHI-31. 3. ROVERT D'ALMEDIA, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, POPULAR ROAD, VADUTHALA, CHERANELLOOR VILLAGE, KOCHI-23. 4. JAMES HADLENT GUNTHER, S/O.HUBERT GUNTHER, ROSY COTTAGE, K.D.PLOT, SOUTH KALAMASSERY P.O., KOCHI-683 109. Kss ..2/- ...2...... WPC.NO.25468/2009 O 5. LESLIE BIVERA, S/O.LATE DOMINIC BIVERA, PRESIDENT, UNION OF ANGLO INDIAN ASSOCIATIONS, RESIDING AT PALLICHAL ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. 6. SIMON BRITTO, RODRIRUES, S/O.NICHOLAS RODRIGUES, 'KAYAM', JETTY ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23. 7. DAVID PIN HERO, S/O.MICHAL PIN HERO, KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. LUDY LUIZ, S/O.JOSEPH LUIZ, CHERUPUNNATHIL HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-23. 9. ALEXANDER CORREYA, SECRETARY, ANGLO INDIAN ASSOCIATION, CHATHIYATH, KOCHI-12. 10. TRESA FERNANDEZ, SECRETARY, ANGLO INDIAN ASSOCIATION, ERNAKULAM. 11. LOUIZ CABRAL, PRESIDENT, ANGLO INDIAN ASSOCIATION, SANDE, MUNDANVELI P.O., KOCHI. 12. ANDREW RODRRIGUS, PRESIDENT, ANGLO INDIAN ASSOCIATION, MANJANAKKAD, NARAKKAL, KOCHI. 13. JOY SIMENTHY, S/O.NOCHOLAS, MULLAYAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, KADUKUTTY, KALOOR, VADAKKEMURI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 14. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF ANGLO INDIAN EDUCATION, PERUMANOOR, KOCHI-5 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.LESLIE BIVERA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25468 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 9th September, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records leading to Exts.P10, P13 and P14 orders and set aside the said orders and direct the learned Munsiff's Court to settle the issues in the suit in accordance with Ext.P4 judgment.” 2. Petitioners are defendants 13 and 14 in O.S.No.118 of 2008 on the file of the 1st Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. The first respondent is stated to be a registered association formed for the welfare of the Anglo Indians. The 3rd and 4th respondents as plaintiffs instituted the above suit to declare that the notices issued by the 2nd and 3rd defendants to convene a general body meeting of the first defendant association are illegal and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 3 from convening a general body meeting of the association under the notices issued. The other respondents in the Writ Petitions are the codefendants in the suit. On an application moved by the plaintiffs for an interim injunction to restrain defendants 2 and 3 from convening a general body meeting of the first defendant association, the learned Munsiff passed an order W.P.C.No.25468/09 - 2 - permitting to convene the general body meeting on the notice issued by the 2nd defendant subject to the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court. The third defendant was restrained from convening the meeting as per his notice. It was also ordered that any decision taken in the meeting will be subject to the result of the suit. P2 is the copy of that order. The 2nd defendant challenged the above order by filing an appeal as C.M.A.No.8 of 2008 before the District Court, Ernakulam. The learned District Judge disposed the appeal by P4 judgment. In P4 judgment it was held the validity of the decisions taken in the general body meeting held on 27.1.2008 will be decided in the trial of the suit. Taking note that the term of the office bearers of the first respondent association is over, the learned District Judge observed that it will be appropriate to conduct an election under the supervision of a Commissioner appointed by the trial court. Pursuant thereto, on the application moved by the third defendant, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the court to conduct the elections to the governing body of the first defendant association. P10 is the copy of that order. The application moved by the third respondent giving rise to P10 order was considered along with two other applications moved by another W.P.C.No.25468/09 - 3 - as I.A.No.48 of 2009 and I.A.No.66 of 2009 whereby they wanted the election to be conducted on the basis of a voters list of 2005. The applications, I.A.No.48 of 2009 and I.A.No.66 of 2009, were dismissed and that of the third defendant allowed by common P10 order. Petitioners were not parties to the suit at the time when the third defendant filed the application as they had been impleaded as additional 13 and 14 defendants later. After passing P10 order, these petitioners moved two applications, one for reviewing that order and the other to implead them as additional parties in the application moved by the third defendant for conduct of election. Both the applications were dismissed by the court below. Propriety and correctness of P10 order and the subsequent orders passed by the court below on the review petition and the impleadment petition filed by the petitioners are challenged in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and the circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and it is dispensed with. Inviting my attention to P1, copy W.P.C.No.25468/09 - 4 - of the plaint in the suit, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit itself has become infructuous and as such the directions issued for conduct of the election of the first defendant association, that too on the basis of an incorrect voters list, is totally illegal. According to the learned counsel, if at all, an election to the governing body of the first respondent association is to be conducted, it is to be based on the approved voters list of the year 2005 and not on any voters list at a later point of time. After going through the orders passed by the court below and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented in the case, I find this court in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction is not expected to and cannot go into the disputes canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners which require to be adjudicated by the trial court on the basis of the pleadings and evidence to be adduced in the case. P10 order of the court below which is seen to have been passed complying with the direction of the learned District Judge for taking steps to conduct the election to the 1st defendant association under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner was after these petitioners were made additional defendants in the suit. Though they have not been impleaded as parties in the application moved by the third defendant W.P.C.No.25468/09 - 5 - seeking the conduct of election to the first defendant association, it is seen from P10 order that the cause pleaded by them had been taken by the petitioner in I.A.No.48 of 2009 and I.A.No.66 of 2009 contending that election should be conducted on the basis of the voters list of 2005. The request made by that petitioner was negatived by the trial court by P10 order. Thereafter these petitioners had moved applications to show themselves as additional parties in the application of the third defendant and also for review of P10 order. At the time when the third defendant filed the application these defendants were not among the array of the defendants, but, when the application was heard and disposed, they were already impleaded in the suit. But as seen from P10 order, the application of the third defendant was considered jointly with two other applications moved by another party and thereafter P10 order was passed. In such circumstances, the review petition filed against that order by these petitioners was found devoid of any merit by the trial court. Similarly, their request for showing them as additional parties in the application of the third defendant long after the passing of P10 order was also found meritless and rejected. I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the orders so passed by the learned Munsiff. It is also W.P.C.No.25468/09 - 6 - seen that these petitioners have filed counter to the application moved by the third defendant and that was also taken into account by the trial court and the objections raised therein were also taken into account while passing P10 order though they had not been formally made as parties in the application moved by the third defendant. There is no merit in the challenges raised by the petitioners against the orders passed by the court below and I find no interference with such orders in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court is called for. Writ Petition is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE