RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are members of the fifth respondent society. The petitioners have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the action of the second respondent in not considering and passing orders on Ext.P5 objections submitted by them. According to the petitioners, the fifth respondent published a draft voters list on 17.5.2012 for the purpose of conducting an election to be held on 21.6.2012. The petitioners submitted Exts.P2 and P3 objections to the draft voters list. According to them, 8 persons who are not living in the area have been included in the draft voters list. 18 persons so included are persons who do not own either a cow or a buffalo. For the above reasons, the petitioners contend that the names of such persons are liable to be excluded from the final voters list. However, the final voters list was published on 25.5.2012 after rejecting their objections. Though the petitioners have submitted Ext.P5complaint to the second respondent, no orders have been assed thereon till date. The petitioners therefore seek the issue of an order of stay of the election and a further direction to consider their complaint.

(2.) The learned Govt. Pleader, who appears for respondents 1 to 4 and 6 submits that the complaint of the petitioners had been duly considered and rejected before finalising the voters list. Therefore, it is contended that the present complaint of the petitioner is without any substance. In view of the fact that the objections of the petitioners have already been considered and rejected by the Returning Officer, there is no justification for the contention that the election would have to be stayed till the objections are decided by the second respondent. It is no Doubt true that the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision of the Returning Officer, rejecting their objections. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, they would have to challenge the election itself in a properly framed election petition, after it is over. It is settled law that the election that has been scheduled on the basis of the final voters list that has been published by the sixth respondent cannot be interfered with on the basis of such objections as in the present case. For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file an election petition.