Disposed

Sukumaran v. the Joint Registrar

Kerala HC20 Jan 2012WP(C)/5035/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged irregularities in the Kadathuruthi Urban Co-operative Bank election. The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Joint Registrar to consider the petitioners' representation regarding unauthorized members.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Joint Registrar to consider the petitioners' representation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Sukumaran Vs the Joint Registrar — Election Law | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/30TH POUSHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 5035 of 2009 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

P.C. SUKUMARAN, PUTHENMYALIL,

¶8

ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM POST, K.S. PURAM, KADATHURUTHY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (MEMBERSHIP NO. 13997)

¶9

SREEDHARAN.V.R, NORAPPEL, K.S. PURAM, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM POST K.S. PURAM, KADATHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (MEMBERSHIP NO. 1555)

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G) KOTTAYAM.

¶13

THE KADATHURUTHY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. K. 399, H.O. KADATHURUTHY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶14

THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, KADATHURUTHI URBAN CO-OPERARTIVE BANK LTD. K. 399 H.O. KADATHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), VAIKOM.

¶15

THE RETURNING OFFICER, ELECTORAL OFFICER, KADATHURUTHI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. K. 399 H.O. KADATHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (OFFICE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VAIKOM R2 BY SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. K.K. SAIDALAVI.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 5035 of 2009 (Y)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 10/05/2006	CIRCULAR NO.3/]2006-2007
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE 29/05/]2006	CIRCULAR MNO.4/2006-2007 DATED
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE BY 1ST PETITIONER	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED DATED 10/]12/2008
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 2ND PETITI DATED 24.01.2009.	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶24

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.5035 OF 2009

¶26

Dated this the 20^th January, 2011

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioners have approached this court with the following prayers:

¶29

i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to conduct election to Kadathuruthi Urban Co-operative Bank No.K.399 after removing the persons allotted with membership No.30304 to 33103 from the final voters list, who are not qualified to be member of the Bank as per Ext.P1 and P2 Circulars.

¶30

ii) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 3 and 4 to provide separate ballot boxes for putting the votes of persons who were allotted with membership No.30304 to 33103, which is the subject matter of Ext.P3 and Pp4 and count them separately and kept in abeyance the declaration of result, so as to protect the

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.5035 OF 2009

¶33

interest of justice.

¶34

Iii) grant such other and further reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deem just and fit in the circumstance of the case.”

¶35

when the matter is taken up for final hearing, the learned

¶36

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the election to the concerned Co-operative Bank is already over and as such, the only question to be considered is with regard to the grievances of the petitioners as to the granting of membership unauthorisedly, which grievance has already been projected in Ext. P3 representation preferred before the first respondent. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is given to the said respondent to consider Ext. P3 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable time.

¶37

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext. P3 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

¶38

¶39

W.P.(C) No.5035 OF 2009

¶40

possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment,of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for taking further steps.

¶41

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶42

Sukumaran v. the Joint Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran v. the Joint Registrar

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

Babu Vadakkedam Vs the K.S.E.Board

M.Nirmala Devi Vs the State of Kerala

Royappan Vs Appellate Authority Under Kerala Planati

S.Girija Vs Kerala State Development Corporation for

V.P.Moideen Vs Kalamassery Municipality

The Headmaster, a.U.P.School, Oorakam Vs the State of Kerala