MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners members of a Service Co-operative Bank seek a writ of t:ertiorari to qush Ext P1 notification of election to the managing committee and the order of the Joint Registrar Ext. P7 dated 20-5-1992. A direction to respondents 3 and 4 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts P2 to P6 representations is also sought. The tenure of the present Board of Directors is to expire on 30th June 1992. The committee now in office had prepared a list of members. A Returning Officer was appointed for conducting the election. Ext. P1 is a true copy of the publication by the Returning Officer. First petitioner along with another member of the Society filed objection wherein it was pointed out that persons who reside outside the area of operation had been included in the voters list. It was also pointed out that names of persons who are dead figured in the list. The Returning Officer was requested to cure the defect in the voters list. He was also informed of the necessity of issuing identity cards to the voters. Lists containing the names of persons who are dead and persons who reside outside the area of operation were also furnished to the Returning Officer. Instead of considering those objections the final list of voters "was published on 15-5-1992. It is averred in the petition that 4th respondent has a duty to consider the objections raised by petitioners and to delete the names of persons who are ineligible to continue in the rolls of the society. Hence the original petition seeking the reliefs aforementioned.

(2.) One Sadasivan Nair filed an application for getting himself impleaded. He claims to be a member of the 5th respondent Society. He is a candidate in the ensuing election which is proposed to be conducted on 13-6-1992. In the afiidavit in support of his petition for impleadment it is averred that the Returning Officer is not expected to entertain objections regarding the inclusion of persons in the voters list nor has he the authority to delete those persons from the voters list. Since Rule 152 of the High Court Rules enables any persons who d:sires to be heard in the matter at the time of hearing of the petition for adn;iss;on to be heard the petition for implead ment was allowed and the petitioner was impleaded as additional 6th respondent.

(3.) Heard counsel for petitioners and sixth respondent and Government Pleader.