IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 25195 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/01/2007 IN IA. 1414 /2006 IN OS.97/1999 OF THE DISTIT COURT, KOLLAM. .................... PETITIONER: --------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN ACHARY, BHADRALAYAM, KARICODE, TKMC, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SREE MULANKADAKOM TEMPLE TRUST, MULANKADAKOM, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT DR.MOHANRAJ. 2. MOHANRAJ, SWATHI, SANKAR NAGAR, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM. 3. K.K.BABU, THODIYIL PURAYIDOM, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM. 4. P.MAHADEVAN, PALAKASSERI KIZHAKKATHIL, KANJAVELI, KOLLAM. 5. K.SIVADASAN, NADAYIL VEEDU, MULANKADAKOM, KOLLAM-12. 6. K.SANKU PILLAI, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, SREE MULANKADAKOM TRUST, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1, 2 & 5 SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI FOR R6 SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI FOR R6 SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI FOR R6 SMT.K.B.REKHA SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.25195/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHME DTD.M31/3/1116. EXT.P2 TRU COPY OF THE I.A.1414/06 IN O.S.NO.97/1099 OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED 6/10/2006. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8/1/2007 IN I.A.1414/06 IN OS.97/1099 OF THE IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 12/9/2006. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. --------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25195 OF 2007 ---------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MARCH, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the Secretary of the Akhila Kerala Viswakarma Mahasabha, Kollam Taluk Union and is a member of the Viswakarma Community. The matter relates to the election to the office bearers of Sree Mulamkadakam Temple. The procedure for conducting the election to the office bearers of the temple trust is stipulated in Ext.P1 scheme. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the conduct of the election on 1/10/2006 is not in accordance with the election procedure adopted in Ext.P1 scheme, which was formulated by the District Court for the administration of the said temple. According to the petitioner, there was no proper publication of the voters' list, that the voters' list does not contain names of all the members, the Commissioner prepared the voters' list on the basis of the names given by the then Bharana Samithy, that the -2- W.P.(C).No.25195/07 election was conducted without verification of the personal identification of the voters, that there were large number of fake voters, that the procedures stipulated in Ext.P1 scheme are flouted by the Commissioner and that proper publication was not done. The petitioner raised so many other contentions. Ext.P2 is the petition submitted by the petitioner and others challenging the election to Sree Mulamkadakam Devi Temple Trust and seeking to quash the same. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the Ist Additional District Court, Kollam. The grievance of the petitioners was narrated in detail in paragraph 2 of the Ext.P3 order. 3. The respondents seriously opposed the said petition and their contentions were narrated in paragraph 3 of Ext.P3 order. The court below determined the questions raised in the petition. In paragraph 4 of the said petition it is stated that the point for determination is whether the election to the office bearers of the Managing committee of Mulankadakam Devi Temple held on -3- W.P.(C).No.25195/07 1/10/2006 is liable to be set aside on account of violation of provisions of the scheme. The court below elaborately considered the contentions of the parties and held in paragraphs 5 and 9 that there are no grounds made out to set aside the election. 4. The court below also held that even though wild allegation is levelled against the Commissioner, no attempt has been made by the petitioners to examine the Commissioner so as to discredit the report submitted by him. 5. The election was conducted on 1/10/2006, the period of Bharana Samithy is 3 years and by 30/9/2009 the period will expire. So, what remains is the administration for a period of few months. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to examine the legality of the order passed by the court below with regard to the points raised by the petitioners in the petition. At the same time, this Court noticed that the approach made by the court below is wrong. The court below in paragraph 10 of the order observed that the returned candidates have secured more -4- W.P.(C).No.25195/07 than 3000 votes whereas the 2nd petitioner secured only less than 600 votes and therefore there is no justification for seeking to set aside the election. This approach is palpably wrong and cannot be sustained in law. The quantum of votes secured by the returned candidates is not a ground for upholding the election. The question is whether the election was conducted in a fair and proper manner. If the election is conducted in violation of the procedure and the provisions of the scheme framed, definitely the court below shall interfere with the order and set aside the election. Another reason said by the court below is that huge amount was invested for conducting the election. The observation of the court below that the petitioners failed to brought to its notice during the period of election regarding any illegality or irregularity in the procedure followed by the Commissioner for conducting the election is also equally unsustainable. In view of Clause 8 of the scheme, the aggrieved persons can challenge the election only after the conduct of -5- W.P.(C).No.25195/07 election. So the procedural irregularity and illegality need not be pointed out by anybody during the course of election. This observation is due to wrong understanding of the scheme and procedure for election. 5. This Court is not inclined to set aside the order passed by the court below and direct the court below to pass a revised order, for the reason that the period of the present committee will be over within a few months. Therefore, no purpose will be served by remitting the matter to the court below for consideration of the entire issues. In view of the reasons stated above, this writ petition is closed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.