IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9296 of 2009(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE PUNALUR SC/ST SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.Q 489, PUNALUR P.O., KOLLAM DIST, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, C.BALACHANDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEPT OF SC/ST DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CAST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, ELECTION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN. FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 & R2 BY SRI. P. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.9296 of 2009-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a co-operative society, stated to be registered and functioning for the purpose of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It submitted Ext.P1 project report. It was approved and recommended by the Kerala Working Group for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and Government order was issued for an amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. The complaint in this writ petition is that the said amount is not being disbursed on account of the application of Code of Conduct in view of the ensuing Lok Sabha elections. 2.On behalf of the Election Commission of India, it is submitted that the implementation of Code of Conduct has nothing to do with the non- WP(C)9296/09 -: 2 :- disbursement of the amounts and the Election Commission has obtained the report of the second respondent thereafter that the payment was not being made due to paucity of funds. 3.This Court, therefore, wanted the second respondent to state the reason for the delay and also as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the amounts. 4.A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record virtually taking the stand that there is no sufficient amount available with the District Collector or with the Department to meet the expenditure ordered as per Ext.R2(c) Government Order and that there is no question of that amount being characterized as a liability or a commitment. It is only a proposed expenditure. 5.Under the aforesaid circumstances, it is not within the domain of this Court to issue any direction in favour of the petitioner. Hence, WP(C)9296/09 -: 3 :- this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the competent authority in the Government for appropriate relief, if any. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/010409