IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20893 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUNDOOR THULASI, FORMER PRESIDENT, VACCANADU KSHEERA ULPATHAKA, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.Q-288(D) APCOS, MUNDOOR VEEDU, VACCANAD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.MURALI MADANTHACODU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT, KOLLAM-691001. 2. RETURNING OFFICER, VACCANADU KSHEERA ULPATHAKA, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., DAIRY FARM INSTRUCTOR-A UNIT, KOTTARAKKARA-691506. 3. PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR, VACCANAD KSHEERA ULPATHAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITY LTD., DAIRY FARM INSTRUCTOR-B UNIT, KOTTARAKKARA-691506. 4. VACCANADU KSHEERA ULPATHAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.Q 288 (D), APCOS, VACCANADU.P.O., KUZHIMATHIKADU, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PIN-691504. 5. G. MOHANAN, KESAVAPURATHU VEEDU, VACCANAD.P.O., KUZHUMATHIKKADU, KOLLAM-691509. 6. B. THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI, MANGATTUPUTHAN VEEDU, ULAKODU, VACCANAD.P.O., KUZHUMATHIKKADU, KOLLAM-691509. 7. CHANDRAMATHY AMMA, MANGATTUPUTHAN VEEDU, ULAKODU, VACCANAD.P.O., KUZHUMATHIKKADU, KOLLAM-691509. 8. SURESH KUMAR, THUNDIL VEEDU VACCANAD.P.O., KUZHUMATHIKKADU, KOLLAM-691509. WP(C).No. 20893 of 2011(J) 9. V. BHASKARAN, MULAYARA VEEDU,ELAYAM, VACCANAD.P.O., KUZHUMATHIKKADU, KOLLAM-691509. 10. VASUKUTTAN PILLAI, PULIPRA PUTHEN VEEDU, VACCANAD.P.O., KUZHUMATHIKKADU, KOLLAM-691509. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ R5 -10 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R4 BY SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20893 of 2011(J) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, APPOINTING PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR DT.23.2.2011 P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.23.6.11 TO CONDUCT ELECTION AND APPOINTING THE RETURNING OFFICER. P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE BYLAW OF THE SOCIETY REGARDING MEMBERSHIP AND VOTE. P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT.12.7.11 P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE QUALITY CONTROL OFFICER, KOLLAM DT.15.7.11 P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL VOTERS LIST. P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.18.7.11 P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE ICDS OFFICER, MUKHATHALA P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE VOTERS LIST, PUBLISHED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER, OF KUNDARA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY RESPPONDENTS' 5 TO 10- EXHIBITS --------------------------------------------------- R5(a) : COPIES OF TH OBJECTION FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT DT.2.8.11 R5(b): COPIES OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT DT. 2.8.11 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 20893 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a member and former President of the fourth respondent co-operative society. He has filed this writ petition for an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to remove the names of respondents 5 to 10 from the voters list published by the second respondent, for the purpose of holding election to the managing committee of the fourth respondent society. The election to the managing committee to the fourth respondent society is scheduled to be held on 16.8.2011. In that election, 9 members have to be elected to the managing committee. After the Returning Officer published the draft voters list on 11.7.2011 containing the names of 32 voters, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 objection, wherein he alleged that respondents 5 to 10 herein have along with the Administrator of the society and the Secretary of society falsified records to make it appear that they are eligible to vote in the elections. In that representation the petitioner requested the Returning Officer, the Administrator of Society and the Deputy Director of Dairy Development to delete the names of respondents 5 to 10 from WP (C) No. 20893 of 2011 2 the voters list. It appears the Deputy Director of Diary Development caused an enquiry to be conducted by the Quality Control Officer, Kollam into the complaint submitted by the petitioner. The Quality Control Officer, Kollam thereafter sent Ext.P5 letter dated 15.7.2011 to the Deputy Director of Diary Development to the effect that though he did not find respondents 5 to 10 are rearing cattle, the records maintained in the society disclose that they have measured milk. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed contending that the respondents 5 to 10 are ineligible to vote in the elections and that they have falsified records to make it appear that they are eligible to vote in the elections. On this ground the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to remove the names of respondents 5 to10 from the voters list. 2. In my opinion, the Returning Officer cannot conduct a roving enquiry while considering the objections to the draft voters list and decide whether the records maintained in the society have been manipulated or fabricated. The Returning Officer can only consider whether the member whose name appears in the voters list or seeks inclusion in the voters list is eligible as per the records of the society to vote in the elections. WP (C) No. 20893 of 2011 3 From a reading of the complaint submitted by the petitioner, it appears that his grievance is regarding the membership given to respondents 5 to 10 in the fourth respondent society. This is a matter on which the Returning Officer cannot take a decision. I am therefore not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case warranting the exclusion of the names of respondents 5 to 10 from the voters list. I therefore find no grounds to grant the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioner from taking other appropriate steps, to remove respondents 5 to 10 from the membership of the society if grounds exist for removing them from membership. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. rkc