IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37003 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ANDREW LUIZ,S/O.LATE ESTAVE LUIZ, AGED 70 YEARS,CHERUPUNATHIL HOUSE,STEVE VILLA, PERUMANNOOR,KOCHI-15. 2. ANTONY FERNANDEZ,AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE JOHN FERNANDEZ,KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, NETTOOR.P.O,ERNAKULAM. 3. MELVIN D' CUNHA, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY D'CUNHA,ILLICKAL HOUSE,KONTHURUTHY, KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682 013. BY ADV. SRI.N.C.JOSEPH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- A.BALAGOPALAN,ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, D.H.ROAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 016. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37003 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The controversy in this writ petition relates to the conduct of the respondent-the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Civil Court for conducting election to the Union of Anglo Indian Association. According to the petitioners, the Advocate Commissioner has gone beyond his mandate and it is complaining of the above, this writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. 2. In my view, Anglo Indian Association is purely a Private Association, which is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, and if that be so, the Advocate Commissioner, who is discharging the duties of a Returning Officer is also not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. However, counsel for the petitioners contends that since he is discharging his duties under Ext.P1 judgment of this Court, the writ petition is maintainable. I am unable to agree with this contention either. WP(C) No.11352/10 in which Ext.P1 judgment was rendered arose out of the proceedings before the Civil Court and in Ext.P1 judgment also, WPC No. 37003/10 :2 : further directions were issued by this Court for the smooth conduct of the elections. That does not in any manner mean that the Advocate Commissioner is discharging any public duty to be amenable to writ jurisdiction. 3. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Needless to say that this Court has only examined the maintainability of the writ petition and it is for the petitioners to seek their remedies before the Civil Court. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp