IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35279 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VENU, CHALUKKIL KUNNUMMAL, SIVAPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. C.SOMASUNDARAM, CHERUVANDOOR, SIVAPURAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SIVAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.696, SIVAPURAM, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. 2. THE RETURNING OFFICER, SIVAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.696, SIVAPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS. W.P.C.NO. 35279/2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.P2 COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE R3. EXT.P3 COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE R4. EXT.P4 PUBLICATION IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DT. 18-11-2009. EXT.P5 RELEVANT PORTION OF VOTERS LIST. EXT.P6 PETITION DT. 24-11-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35279 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are members of the 1st respondent-Co-operative Bank. They are now aggrieved by exclusion of certain members from the voters list and inclusion of some other members. According to the petitioners, in order to enable the persons in power to include persons of their choice as members, the original register of members has been destroyed and a register containing members who are not actual members of the society has been prepared. The petitioners claim to have filed Ext. P3 petition before the 4th respondent in this respect. The petitioners claim to have filed Ext. P6 objections against the voters list also. On these grounds, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th respondent to conduct proper investigation on Ext. P3 and take further action. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to put the votes vide Sl. No. 1847, M.No. 3095 onwards up to Sl. No. 1919, M. No. 3166 in a separate box as per Ext. P 5 voters list. iii. Stay the declaration of the result of the election to elect the managing committee scheduled on 13-12-2009.” 2. I have heard counsel for the society also. 3. Insofar as the first prayer is concerned, the petitioners' remedy lies in approaching the criminal court for such relief. As far as the second relief is concerned, the petitioners can maintain the writ petition for that relief only if the petitioners had filed objection to the voters list within the time stipulated in the election notification. The petitioners claim that Ext. P6 is such objection. But, Ext. P6 is not filed by either of the two petitioners. The learned Government W.P.C. No. 35279/09 -: 2 :- Pleader submits that orders have already been passed on Ext. P6. That being so, the petitioners who have not filed any objections to the voters list cannot now sustain the writ petition for the reliefs (ii) and (iii). Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to approach a criminal court for appropriate reliefs regarding investigation pursuant to Ext. P3. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/