JANTISH M.T Vs. KERALA STATE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from a common order passed by the learned single Judge on 21.12.2017, declining to stay elections to the managing committee of Ramapuram Regional Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No.4111. W.A.No.2688 of 2017 arises from W.P. (C) .No.41142 of 2017 and W.A.No.42 of 2018 arises from W.P. (C) .No.39884 of 2017. The appellants are the petitioners in the respective writ petitions.

(2.) The appellants had in the respective writ petitions prayed for quashing the election notification which was produced and marked as Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) .No.39884 of 2017 and as Ext.P.2 in W.P. (C) .No.41142 of 2017. They had in the respective writ petitions prayed for an interim order staying the elections scheduled to be held on 28.12017. Though the learned single Judge declined to pass interim order staying the elections the fact remains that the elections were not held on 28.12017 on account of a decision taken by the State Co-operative Election Commission to postpone the poll. As on today the date of poll has not been declared. Such being the situation, we are of the opinion that the petitioners should move the learned single Judge to expedite the hearing and disposal of the cases instead of prosecuting these appeals, which according to us have become infructuous on account of the aforesaid developments. It was submitted before us that the observations in the impugned order, more particularly in paragraphs 15 and 16 regarding the authority of the State Co-operative Election Commission to modify or tinker with the resolution adopted by the managing committee to hold elections would cause prejudice to the petitioners unless the said observations are vacated. The learned single Judge has in paragraph</i> 25 of the impugned order, while declining interim relief, observed that the observations contained in impugned order are for the limited purpose of deciding the question of grant of interim relief. In the light of the said observation, we find no reason or justification to clarify that the observations are only for the purpose of the interim order. It is evident from the impugned order itself that the writ petitions will be disposed of untrammeled by the observations therein. These writ appeals are accordingly closed as infructuous. As stated earlier, the appellants or the respondents may move the learned single Judge for expeditious hearing and disposal of the writ petition. Though learned counsel appearing for the parties who have filed impleding petitions prayed for the impleading petitions may be allowed, we are of the opinion that they should move applications in that regard in the writ petitions. The impleading petitions filed in this writ appeals are accordingly closed, reserving liberty with the petitioners therein to move applications for impleading in the pending writ petitions.