IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 1622 of 2008(S) ---------------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.28947/2008 DATED 15/10/2008) .................... PETITIONER/ 2ND PETITIONER IN W.P: -------------------------------------------------------- V.K.ASHOKAN, VECHELA HOUSE, ELTHURUTH P.O., LALOOR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR. RESPONDENT/ 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C): ----------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.SIVAN KUTTY, RETURNING OFFICER, (CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR, ADAT UNIT), THE TRICHUR DISTRICT HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REG.NO.R.1197, PUTHENPURAKAL BUILDING, POOTHOLE ROAD, THRICHUR - 680 004. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Cont.Case(C).No.1622 of 2008-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.This contempt of court case is filed by the second among the six persons who filed the WP(C). 28947/2008 and obtained Annexure-A judgment on 15-10-2008. That matter related to the rejeCtion of nominations in the course of election to the committee of a co-operative society. Certain directions were issued after setting aside the rejection of nominations and ultimately, it was ordered that the directions contained in that judgment do not stand in the way of any issue that may arise in relation to the election after the exercise as directed in that judgment is undertaken by the Returning Officer. It was also stated that if the decision on the nomination papers is adverse to the petitioners, the Returning Officer will communicate a copy of that COC1622/08 -: 2 :- decision to them stating reasons. 2.Ext.R1(a) produced along with the affidavit is the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination of the first petitioner in WP(C). 28947/2008. The said person Sri.Dharmapalan is a signatory at the foot of Ext.R1(a). It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that Dharmapalan filed a writ petition challenging that decision but later withdrew it. He also states that petitioners 3 to 6 filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the decision of the Returning Officer. Obviously, therefore, the Returning Officer had issued decisions after considering the nominations. 3.While it is the assertion of the petitioner that he attempted to engage a learned advocate practicing in Thrissur to appear for him before the Returning Officer and that the Returning Officer turned the petitioner away without hearing him, the stand taken by the Returning COC1622/08 -: 3 :- Officer in his affidavit in answer to this contempt of court case is that the second petitioner in the writ petition, namely, the petitioner herein had appeared before him but had refused to participate in the proceedings and even sign at the foot of the proceedings of that day. As of now, it is not in controversy that the nomination submitted by the petitioner was also rejected. The affidavit of the Returning Officer is that the petitioner herein did not seek for a copy of that decision. 4.As already noticed, all issues relatable to an election are essentially left open by the judgment dated 15-10-2008, to be raised in an appropriately constituted election dispute in terms of law. I do not find any case being made out of wilful disobedience to any direction contained in the judgment warranting invocation of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. This case is COC1622/08 -: 4 :- dismissed without prejudice to any election dispute. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/090109