W.A. No. 1511 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 2303/2013. Case: Padmanabhan Pallath Vs State of Kerala and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | W.A. No. 1511 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 2303/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: M.M. Monaye, M. Paul Varghese and Desi Matthai, Advs. and For Respondents: Shameer P.M., Government Pleader |
| Judges | T.B. Radhakrishnan and Devan Ramachandran, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 226; Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 69; Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 14 |
| Judgement Date | February 01, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
T.B. Radhakrishnan, J.
-
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
-
The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed challenging an election notification in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act', for short.
-
Going by the material facts, it appears that the electoral college is constituted from different categories. The question that ultimately emerged for consideration during the course of the writ petition was as to whether the electoral college has been duly identified in terms of the provisional voters' list, as also, the final voters' list. The inclusion or exclusion of certain Co-operative Societies on the basis of their eligibility conditions appears to be an issue, whatever that be, during the course of the proceedings. Elections were held on the basis of provisional orders issued by this Court. Those interlocutory orders now stand merged in the judgment dated 24.09.2014, which is challenged in this writ appeal.
-
The learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submits that 78 Co-operative Societies had earlier filed writ petitions seeking inclusion in the voters list. It appears that there were interlocutory orders for provisional admission into the electoral college. Thereafter, after enjoying the benefit of interlocutory orders, those writ petitions were withdrawn or closed as infructuous by those 78 Societies. This is also a moot issue on which the appellant before us is allegedly aggrieved, since, according to him, that would have a direct impact on the total number of votes that could have been polled in favour or against any particular candidate.
-
The aforesaid discussions will clearly show that the learned single Judge was well founded in saying that it would not be possible within the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate on the different questions, including the eligibility of the different voters and the constitution of the electoral college on the basis of the provisional list and the final list. The learned single Judge was abundantly justified in being extremely cautious in further pushing forward in the writ jurisdiction and confining the adjudication to be one which had to be closed down paving way...
To continue reading
Request your trial