IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3226 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MANOJ.I.V, S/O. VARKEY, AGED 38 YEARS, ITIYAPPARA HOUSE, KOOMANTHODU.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. ANAPPANTHY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ANGADIKKADAVU.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE UNIT INSPECTOR (RETURNING OFFICER), KOOTHUPARAMBA UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, KOOTHUPARAMBA CIRCLE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), (ELECTORAL OFFICER) CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, KOOTHUPARAMBA CIRCLE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED: R5. C.K.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT CHAKKALIKUNNEL HOUSE, MUNDAYAMPARAMBU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. (*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4/02/2009 IN I.A.NO.1739/2009) R1 BY ADV. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM R2 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADDL.R5 BY ADV.MR.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.3226/2009 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 30/12/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DTD. 6/1/2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 14/03/1999. EXT.P3(A): COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 14/03/1999. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(A): COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO THIS DEPONENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY ON 15/2/99. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.3226 of 2009-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner is a candidate for an election notified to the committee of the first respondent society. Ext.P1 notification was issued by the State Co-operative Election Commission on 30-12- 2008 and the polling is fixed to be held on 7-2- 2009. The writ petition is filed on the allegation that the petitioner is not in a position to understand as to who are the eligible voters coming to cast their vote in the coming election. The backdrop of this stand is that in 1999, there was a law and order problem in connection with the election and it is alleged that certain persons were arrested for possessing vague identity cards. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3 newspaper report of March, 1999 to state that the Form 6B register maintained in the WP(C)3226/2009 -: 2 :- society was destroyed and the identity of the persons cannot be established on the basis of that material. It is also stated that new identity cards are being issued. 2.The first respondent society does not dispute the electoral process initiated by the issuance of Ext.P1, but has filed a counter affidavit placing on record that in the event that occurred in 1999, following scuffle, the photographs of members as available in the Form 6B register were damaged, including by rain. It is also stated that more than 5000 members have already been issued identity cards and two more days are left to apply for issuance of identity cards. 3.The process of election has commenced by the issuance of Ext.P1 notification. The draft voters' list was published, objections were called for and the final voters' list has been published. The impleaded additional respondent also points out that even he has in his WP(C)3226/2009 -: 3 :- possession his identity card issued long ago and should not be compelled to take a fresh identity card for the purpose of voting in the election in question. At this point of time, it is not necessary for this Court to issue any direction except that the Returning Officer will ensure that the election is conducted in accordance with the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules. This is the bare minimum that has to happen. I do not find it appropriate to issue any specific direction or guidelines for the Returning Officer as to how he should handle a situation that may arise in relation to identifying the voters. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/