STANELY RAJ Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a direction to the police to afford adequate and effective police protection for the smooth conduct of the election to the managing committee of the Private School Employees Co-operative Society Ltd., No. 369 of Neyyattinkara to be held on 18-10-2013. Apart from the averment that the election is contested on political lines with candidates from LDF and UDF are contesting the election, which is the case with almost all co-operative societies in the State, no specific reasons have been stated in the writ petition for apprehending disturbances in the election. No previous instances have been stated.

(2.) We note that whenever an election is scheduled to be conducted in respect of a Co-operative Society in this State, invariably one team or other come to this Court, seeking police protection for the smooth conduct of the election. Both LDF and UDF are claiming they are democratic political alliances. If that be so, they must be able to undergo the democratic process peacefully, without causing any disturbances in the election. Apart from that, in all elections, it is the duty of the police to see that elections are conducted smoothly. Of course, there are instances of disturbances in election in Co-operative Societies in the State. According to us, even without a writ petition or an order from this Court, it is the cardinal duty of the police to see that election to the managing committees of Co-operative Societies within their jurisdiction goes on smoothly, without any disturbances whatsoever. In view of the increasing number of writ petitions coming up before this Court, we put it to the State Attorney who appears for the police before us, as to whether or not the police is not duty bound to see that the elections in co-operative societies are conducted smoothly The State Attorney frankly admits that it is the duty of the police which should be so also. But he submits that for that the Returning Officer should inform the police in advance about the necessity for police protection. We do not agree with the submission of the learned State Attorney. The election to Co-operative Societies in the State are not conducted secretly. The people of the locality, including the concerned Sub Inspector or Circle Inspector would know in advance from the flex boards, which are invariable exhibited in every nook and corner of the area of operation of the Co-operative Society that an election is going to take place on a specific date. When it is the duty of the police to see that such elections are conducted smoothly, immediately on coming to know of the same, the concerned Police Officer is duty bound to enquire with the Returning Officer as to whether or not he expects any disturbances in the election and if necessary provide such police assistance to conduct the election smoothly. When this was pointed out, the learned State Attorney undertakes that, hereinafter, the police would by themselves without any directions from this Court, see that ejections to Co-operative Societies in the State would be conducted smoothly without disturbances from any quarters. This undertaking is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of. We make it clear that this undertaking is applicable to not only this particular society, but to all Societies in the State.