IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23360 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.K.ABDUL GAFOOR HAJI, MANGALAMUTTATHU MALIKAYIL, THURVAOOR.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. DILEEP KANNADAN, SWAMINI COTTAGE, PARAYAKKAD.P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PARAYAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2869, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA - 688 524. 2. RETURNING OFFICER, PARAYAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2869, PARAYAKKAD P.O., THURAVOOR, (UNIT INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (G) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHERTHALA). 3. ELECTORAL OFFICER, PARAYAKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2869, PARAYAKKAD P.O., THURAVOOR, (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (G) OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHERTHALA) MR.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.23360 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of August, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the members of the 1st respondent Co- operative Bank. 2. Election to the Board of Directors of the Bank is scheduled to be held on 16/08/2009. According to the petitioners, there are two panels of candidates, belonging to the United Democratic Front and Left Democratic Front, contesting the election, which is a very hotly contested one on political lines. The petitioners submit that every endeavor is made by one section of the voters to obstruct a free and fair election. It is stated that the Secretary was prevented from issuing identity cards to several of the members and that the Secretary was also kept under confinement. The petitioners refer to Ext.P3 communication issued by the Secretary of the Society to the Assistant Registrar complaining wrongful confinement. Reference is also made to Ext.P3 news report about the aforesaid incident. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition with the WP(C) No.23360/2009 -2- following prayers:- “i) To appoint an Advocate Commissioner as an independent observer to oversee the conduct of election to the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent scheduled to be held on 16/08/2009 and direct the advocate Commissioner to submit a report before this Honourable Court; ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, directing the respondents to ensure that voters with doubtful identity are permitted to cast their votes in the election to the Managing Committee of the 1st respondent Society, scheduled to be held on 16/08/2009, only after ensuring their identity by comparison of the voters photograph in the identity card with the photograph in the Form 6B register.” 3. In so far as the 1st prayer for appointment of an Observer by this Court is concerned, I feel that in view of the judgment of this Court in Narayanan Nambiar v. State (1993(2) KLT 625), the same cannot be allowed. Paragraphs 6 & 7 of the judgment, being profitable, are extracted below :- “6. The learned counsel for the petitioner called in aid the inherent powers of this Court. The purpose of the exercise of the inherent powers is to subserve the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of the Court. No process which is threatened with abuse has been issued by this Court. Therefore, there is no question of its abuse. Then there remain the ends of justice. The expression, ends of justice, WP(C) No.23360/2009 -3- cannot be understood in the abstract sence. It means justice, between the parties to this petition. The Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules prescribe elaborate provisions for the conduct of elections to the committees. The elections are conducted under the supervision and control of a Returning Officer. Identity of members who vote has to be established before the polling officer. For this purpose identity cards with photographs of members have been issued. Agents of the candidates watch the recording of votes and identify the voters. Sealed ballot boxes are open and shown to the persons present and thereafter locked and sealed. Candidates are permitted to affix their seals on the ballot boxes. The elaborate procedure laid down by R.35 is designed to eliminate the mischief and manipulation which the petitioner fears will occur. After the results are announced the unsuccessful candidate has the remedy of challenging the election by a petition under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The machinery consisting of Returning Officer, the polling officers and the personnel for counting votes, who are employees of the Government answerable for misconduct, together with the presence of polling agents of candidates to watch the proceedings adequately ensures free and fair poll. 7. The inherent powers of the Court are intended to serve the ends of justice. In the context of the election to the Committees under the provision of the Act and the Rules, justice means justice according to the procedure prescribed by the Act and the Rules. The appointment of observers, will create a parallel machinery to supervise the WP(C) No.23360/2009 -4- function of the statutory machinery, thereby interfering with the administration of law. Secondly this petition seeks court's sanction for a procedure not authorised by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules which have prescribed elaborate and selfcontained procedure to ensure fair and independent poll. The ends of justice are not promoted by the presence of observers not authorised by law.” However, that does not mean that lawlessness can be allowed to prevail at the venue of polling, or that the affected party should be left only to pursue the matter in an Election Petition. I feel, if there is any substance in what the petitioners apprehend, it is the responsibility of all those concerned to prevent the same. 4. In any case, in order to take care the apprehension of the petitioners, I direct that the 2nd respondent shall arrange for videographing of the events at the polling stations, on his directions, and at the cost of the petitioners. However, the originals of video tape/CDs will be kept by the 2nd respondent, and a copy thereof will be issued to the petitioners. 5. The 2nd relief that is sought for by the petitioners is based on the possibility of bogus voting. It is stated that efforts are being made to resort to this illegal practice to manipulate the WP(C) No.23360/2009 -5- results of the election. This could certainly be avoided if identity of the voters are established with reference to the photograph affixed in the identity cards, and Form 6B register. Therefore, it is directed that in case identity of any voter is disputed, the 2nd respondent shall verify the identity of the voter concerned with reference to the photograph in the identity card and in the Form 6B register. 6. The petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg