Disposed

George Abraham v. Ranni Marthoma Medical Mission Centre

Kerala HC10 Feb 2011OP(C)/502/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Returning Officer to produce ballot papers within a week and kept them in court custody. Counting was stayed until the appeal's disposal. The current committee must function until a new date is fixed if the appeal isn't resolved by February 25.

What did the court decide?

Ballot papers produced within one week; kept in safe custody; counting stayed until final disposal of appeal; current committee to function if appeal not disposed by February 25.

George Abraham Vs Ranni Marthoma Medical Mission Centre — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 21ST MAGHA 1932

¶5

OP(C).No. 502 of 2011(O)

¶6

CMA.2/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

GEORGE ABRAHAM,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE,BUSINESS, RESIDING AT ALAPATTAYA KACHANATHU HOUSE, NELLICKMON(PO),ANGADI MURI,ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK.

¶9

BY SENIOR ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI,

¶10

SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.L.RAJ MOHAN SRI.SAJJU.S

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

RANNI MARTHOMA MEDICAL MISSION CENTRE, MAMUKKU,ANGADI MURI, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, REP.BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT C.K.THOMAS, S/O.KUNJOOMMEN,AGED 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHERUVAZHAKUNNEL, PAZHAVANGADI P.O.,

¶13

PAZHAVANGADI MURI & VILLAGE,RANNI TALUK-689 672.

¶14

THE SECRETARY,T.S.THOMAS, RANNI MARTHOMA MEDICAL MISSION CENTRE, ANGADI,RANNI- 689 674.

¶15

THE TREASURER,SHAJI THOMAS @ SHAJI PANAVELIL, RANNI MARTHOMA MEDICAL MISSION CENTRE, MAMUKKU,ANGADI MURI, ANGADI VILLAGE,

¶16

RANNI TALUK-689 674.

¶17

THE RETURNING OFFICER,REV.DR.ALEXANDER A.THOMAS, RANNI MARTHOMA MEDICAL MISSION CENTRE,

¶18

ANGADI,RANNI-689 674.

¶19

REV.FR.K.S.ABRAHAM,AGED 79 , S/O.LATE VARKEY SCARIAH,KACHANATHU HOUSE, PULLUPRAM PO, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK-689 674.

¶20

GEORGE VARGHESE,S/O.REV.C.V.GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS,EETTICHUVADU HOUSE, EETTICHUVADU PO, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK-689 674.

¶21

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION & RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.11.2010 NOTIFYING THE DATE OF ELECTION ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.11.2010 SEEMINGLY CONTEMPLATED UNDER RULE 25, NOTE 1 OF THE EXHIBIT P1 NOTIFYING THE PROCEEDINGS ADOPTED FOR THE CONDUCT OF ELECTION ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF VOTERS' LIST FOR THE YEAR 2011 PURPORTED TO BE PUBLISHED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.6/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.49/2011 IN O.S.NO.6/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED JOINTLY BY SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS TO EXHIBIT P6 I.A.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT RETURNING OFFICER TO EXHIBIT P6 I.A.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED JOINTLY BY THE FIFTH AND SIXTH RESPONDENTS TO EXHIBIT P6 I.A.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED 5.11.2010 PURPORTED TO BE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 IN I.A.NO.49.2011 IN O.S.NO.6/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, RANNI.
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA IN CMA.NO.2/2011.
EXT.P13	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN I.A.NO.67/2011 IN C.M.A.NO.2/2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXT.P14	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN I.A.NO.67/2011 IN CMA.NO.2/2011 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.
EXT.P15	TRUE COPY OF REPRODUCTION OF ORDER DATED 29.1.2010 IN I.A.NO.67/2011 IN C.M.A.NO.2/2011 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶28

O.P.(C). NO. 502 OF 2011 O

¶29

Dated this the 10^th day of February, 2011

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

When the Original Petition came up for admission on 4.2.2011, the following order was passed:

¶32

“After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the order passed by the court below does not as such call for interference. The Appellate Court suggested that for the election scheduled to be held on 31.1.2011, an observer could be appointed. But the plaintiffs were not willing and they said that the election should not be held. The court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, held that the order passed by the trial court staying all further proceedings in respect of the election to the governing body of the first defendant association should be stayed. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial court was stayed. The following directions were also issued:

¶33

“The 2^nd defendant who is the Returning Officer appointed for conducting the election to that governing body of the Ranny Marthoma Medical Mission Centre is permitted to conduct the election as already scheduled but the result shall abide by the final order passed by this court

¶34

O.P.(C) NO.502 OF 2011

¶35

:: 2 ::

¶36

in this appeal. It is also made clear that the ballot papers shall not be opened unless otherwise ordered by this court. It is further ordered that the election shall be held in the presence of an observer of this court. Advocate Sri.Mathew Samuel is appointed as observer.”

¶37

I am of the view that the order passed by the court below is legal and proper.

¶38

The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a direction may be issued to the court below not to open the ballot papers until the C.M.Appeal is finally heard. Only for considering this submission, notice is being issued to the respondents.

¶39

Issue notice to the respondents by special messenger. Post on 10.2.2011.

¶40

There will be an interim direction not to open the ballot papers for a period of two weeks.”

¶41

Respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance. As stated in the order dated 4.2.2011, the only point which arises for consideration is whether the ballot papers should be opened before the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is finally heard. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submitted that let the ballot papers be kept in

¶42

O.P.(C) NO.502 OF 2011

¶43

:: 3 ::

¶44

safe custody of the Court. The question of opening the ballot boxes and counting votes etc. are all matters for the Court below to decide at the time of final disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It is also submitted by all the parties that it is necessary to dispose of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal at the earliest.

¶45

Accordingly, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows:

¶46

a) The fourth respondent, the Returning Officer, shall produce the ballot papers before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta, within a period of one week.

¶47

b) The ballot boxes/packets or any other receptacle containing the ballot papers shall be kept in safe custody of the Court.

¶48

c) The opening of ballot boxes and counting of votes will be made as per the directions of the Court at the time of final disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2 of 2011.

¶49

d) The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall be heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Pathanamthitta as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, before 31.3.2011.

¶50

O.P.(C) NO.502 OF 2011

¶51

:: 4 ::

¶52

e) If the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not disposed of before 25.2.2011, the date of expiry of the term of the present Managing Committee, the present Managing Committee shall continue to function as such till such time as the Court below may fix.

¶53

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶54

ahz/

George Abraham v. Ranni Marthoma Medical Mission Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Abraham v. Ranni Marthoma Medical Mission Centre

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.P.Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh K.R and Others Vs State Bank of Travancore and Others

T.Sreelatha Vs Shibu Sebastian

Joseph Prakash Vs Habeebulla

Mohideen Kutty Haji and 3 Others Vs Hamsa & 2 Others

Unnikrishna Pillai Vs Sukumara Pillai