IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9474 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE KOLLAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF,SC,KOLLAM DISTRICT CO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER AND DIST. COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 013. 2. THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER AND TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (ELECTION), COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 013. 4. CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, ELECTION COMMISSION, ELECTION DEPARTMENT, KERALA LEGISLATIVE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 033. 5. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, NIRVACHAN SADAN, ASHOKA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001. 6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. S SRI. MURALI PURUSOTHAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.9474 OF 2011(H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the Kollam District Co-operative Bank with its head office at Kollam and having 57 branches in Kollam District. The grievance of the petitioner is that by Exts.P3 and P3(a) orders issued by the District Election Officer, various officers of the Bank have been appointed as polling personnels. According to the petitioner, if all the Officers mentioned in Exts.P3 and P3(a) are drafted for polling duty that will affect the normal functioning of the Bank itself. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Exts.P4 and P5 representations to respondents 1 and 4 requesting that at least 3 of employees of each branch and one Deputy General Manager and at least 2 officers of each department of the Head Office should be exempted from polling duty. Orders were not passed on Exts.P4 and P5 and therefore the writ petition has been filed. 2. Apart from seeking to quash Exts.P3 and P3(a) petitioner also seeks a declaration that the Bank does not come within the purview of the institutions or undertakings as provided in Section WPC.No. 9474/2011 :2 : 159 of the Representations of People Act, 1950. 3. In so far as the applicability of Section 159 of the Act is concerned, standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has brought to my notice the judgment in WP(c).No.11176/2004, in which, according to him, the said contention has already been overruled by this court. However, having regard to the facts of this case, it is not necessary to go into the said contention. This is for the reason that the Chief Electoral Officer has already passed order dated 24.3.2011 on Ext.P5. By this order the first respondent has been directed as follows; “Attention is invited to the reference cited. General Manager, the Kollam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., has informed that since 90% of the staff of the Kollam District Co-operative Bank are drafted for election duty, the normal functioning of the Bank will be adversely affected for 3 days and hence requested that a minimum number of staff required for the functioning of the bank may be exempted from election duty. In oder to ensure that the basic functioning of the bank is not affected due to the drafting of the bank officials for election duty, I request you that at least a minimum of 2 officers of every branch as listed by them shall be exempted from election duty. Please furnish a compliance report also in this regard.” WPC.No. 9474/2011 :3 : 4. Though this order should substantially redress the grievance raised, counsel for the petitioner points out that the order dated 24.3.2011 applies only in so far as the branches of the bank are concerned and no orders have been issued in so far as the Head Office is concerned. Although from the wordings of the order, there is justification in what is contended by the counsel for the petitioner, still having regard to the purport of the order, I am inclined to think that it will apply to the Head Office of the petitioner bank also. In that view of the matter, recording the order dated 24.3.2011, the writ petition is disposed of leaving open the contentions of the petitioner, regarding the applicability of Section 159 of the Act to their Bank. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/