S R VETRIVEL Vs. ELECTION OFFICER O/O THE DHARMAPURI DISTRICT CONSUMERS CO OP WHOLESALE STORES LIMITED DHARMAPURI TOWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W. P. No. 10054 of 1998, petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of 1st respondent in his proceedings No. Nil and dated 11. 7. 1998 and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and without jurisdiction, and to further direct respondents 1 to 3 to conduct the election to the 4th respondent-Society in accordance with law.

(2.) BY the impugned Order, respondents 1 to 3 approved the voters list of the 4th respondent Co-operative Wholesale Stores. Petitioner, who is one of the Members of the 4th respondent- Society has come to this Court with a grievance that the voters list prepared is illegal and against the provisions of law. According to him, the Society consists of 1211 members. It was decided to hold the elections for the Society on 19. 7. 1998 at the premises of the Society. Notification of election was published in'daily Thanthi'on 3. 7. 1998. Anticipating the election, petitioner asked for voters list by a request made on 19. 6. 1998. When such a request was made, third respondent informed the petitioner in writing that there are about 1216 members which include time members having become members on 19. 6. 1998. According to the petitioner, the voters as on that date alone are eligible to cast their vote since polling was to take place on 19. 7. 1998 i. e. , 30 days before the date of polling. It is further grievance that at the instance of a Minister of the state Government, respondents have admitted more than one-third of voters whose names are also included, and they were also declared as eligible voters. Even though the petitioner filed detailed objections to the enrolment of new members, the same was rejected by the impugned Order. though, it was declared that all voters enrolled till 19. 6. 1998 are eligible to vote and their enrolment has been ratified by the Registrar. It is also found that the new enrolled members have also paid their subscription and necessary amount for getting themselves enrolled along with the application. It is order of enrolment that is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) IT may be stated that in regard to the additional affidavit filed by petitioner in W. P. 10054 of 1998, no counter was filed, and in the other writ petition also, there is no counter affidavit. But the learned additional Government Pleader justified the action of the Joint Registrar in changing the venue, and he argued the matter on instructions.