Allowed

India Coffee Board Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.4227 v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2017WA/2260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a single judge's order refusing to direct videography of election proceedings. The High Court modified the single judge's order, directing respondents to videograph all polling processes with strict confidentiality and to arrange reimbursement of costs. The appeal was allowed. (Note: Original text has typo 'viedographers' and 'viedographers').

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents to videograph the entire polling and election process with a reputable organizer, preserve recordings on CD, and ensure strict confidentiality and reimbursement of

India Coffee Board Workers Co-Operative… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/26TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WA.No. 2260 of 2017 ()

¶6

---------------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 36050/2017 DATED 13-11-2017) --------------------

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶8

INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.4227, THRISSUR, P.B.NO.184, PIN-680 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ANILKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN PERUMBAVOOR, SC,

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. ELECTORAL OFFICER,

¶13

INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4227, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

3. RETURNING OFFICER,

¶15

INDIA COFFEE BOARD WORKERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.4227, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶16

BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM.K.S.

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

P.N. RAVINDRAN & DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ

¶20

¶21

W.A. No. 2260 of 2017

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2017

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2017 in W.P.(C). No.36050 of 2017.

¶27

In the writ petition, the primary prayer made by the appellant was that respondents 2 and 3 herein be directed to videograph the polling and election proceedings to ensure that it is held in a proper and fair manner, without interference from any “trouble makers”. The learned Single Judge, however, declined this prayer, as made by the appellant, but allowing the writ petition partially directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent to ensure that a “free and fair election is conducted in a serene atmosphere, and, if there is any apprehension with respect to likelihood of law and order situation, necessary request shall be made to the concerned police chief” (sic). The District Police Chief has been, thereafter, directed to deploy sufficient force to ensure that law and order is maintained during the election proceedings.

¶28

The appellant has filed this appeal impugning that part of the judgment which refuses a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to videograph the polling and election proceedings.

¶29

W.A. No.2260 of 2017

¶30

-2-

¶31

We have heard Sri. V. Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsel, we proceed to dispose of this writ appeal in limine in the following manner.

¶32

The apprehension voiced by the appellant in the writ petition is that there is a likelihood of trouble being caused by outsiders who are not part of election process. According to the appellant, if respondents 2 and 3 arrange video recording of the election process, such trouble will be deterred to a large extent and we, therefore, see that what has been sought for in the writ petition is in the nature of a deterrent order to ensure that there is no infraction of order at the time of the polling. We see from the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has, in fact, found favour with the submissions of the appellant, but has, however, declined the prayer for videographing the election proceedings, but without assigning any particular reason.

¶33

We are, therefore, of the view that since the learned Single Judge has already directed respondents 2 and 3 to ensure a free and fair election and has also virtually afforded police protection for the said process, it will not be to any one's prejudice that the entire

¶34

W.A. No.2260 of 2017

¶35

-3-

¶36

process is also videographed under the authority of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. On the contrary we are certainly of the view that by doing this the sanctity of the process would, to a large extent, be maintained and protected.

¶37

In such circumstances, and for the reasons that we have recorded above, we direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to engage viedographers of repute and to their satisfaction to videograph the polling and the other election processes till the completion of the same and to preserve the same in the form of a compact disk to be obtained from the said videographer. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondent shall ensure that the videographer/videographers engaged are held to strict confidentiality and that they are instructed not to part with such recording to any other Authority or person except respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3, after the process of election is over, will cause a bill or appropriate proceeding to be raised on the appellant for the expenses of such recording and the appellant will be liable to make payment of said amounts within a period of two days, within which the bill or proceeding is raised on them. If respondents 2 and 3 feel that it be better that the videographers are paid directly by the appellant, they may also make such directions to the appellant who will be liable

¶38

W.A. No.2260 of 2017

¶39

-4-

¶40

to comply with such directions without fail.

¶41

This appeal is thus allowed, modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent indicated therein.

¶42

We request the learned Government Pleader to communicate this order to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents forthwith so as to enable them to take sufficient arrangements for the purpose of video recording as directed herein.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

sd/-

¶46

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

India Coffee Board Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.4227 v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

India Coffee Board Workers Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.4227 v. the State of Kerala

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

Sharlej Vs Geetha Krishnan

The Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Vs N.Vijayan

Karuvely Padasekhara Samrakshana Samithy Vs State of Kerala

Narayana Das Vs V.U. Prakasan

Ramesan V.C. Vs Abdul Majeed P.M.

Philomina George Vs Annie Vincent