Kerala High Court
Venugopalan Nair G vs The State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2021
R.P.No.93/2021 in WP(C)No.484/2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 15TH MAGHA,1942
RP.No.93 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 484/2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 484/2021(I) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS:
1 VENUGOPALAN NAIR G.,
S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, VANIYAM VILAKAM, KOONTHALUR,
CHIRAYINKEEZH P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304
2 HAREESH BABU .K.H.
S/O. HARIJAYAN .K., KOCHUVILA VEEDU, KOONTHALUR,
CHIRAYINKEEZH P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304
3 TOMY,
S/O.SASIDHARAN, VATTAVILA VEEDU, KOONTHALUR,
CHIRAYINKEEZH P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304
4 VIGNESH HARIJAYAN,
S/O. HARIJAYAN, THENNUVILAKAM, KOONTHALUR,
CHIRAYINKEEZH P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 304
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
SMT.SMITHA S.PILLAI
SMT.ALICE THOMAS
SMT.M.C.SINY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-
OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304
3 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,.
ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304
R.P.No.93/2021 in WP(C)No.484/2021 2
4 KIZHUVALLAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
NO.2405,
CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,-695 304,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
5 STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IIND FLOOR, CO-BANK TOWERS,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP K.P HARISH,
SC,SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (R5)
SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR(R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-02-
2021, THE COURT ON 04-02-2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.93/2021 in WP(C)No.484/2021 3
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of February 2021
The review petition is filed by the writ petitioners. They are the
members of the 4th respondent Co-operative Society. Election was
scheduled to be held on 7/2/2021. Petitioners alleged that, when the
preliminary voters list was published, it was noticed that several persons
who were included in the list were ineligible to be members. They neither
did not reside within the limits of the Society nor held any property within
the limits of the society. Exts.P2,P3 and P6 objections were filed by the
petitioners to the preliminary voters list.
2. Grievance of the petitioners was that, the above objections were
not considered. Accordingly, this writ petition was filed seeking direction to
the 3rd respondent Electoral officer to consider Exts.P2,P3 and P6
objections filed by the petitioners to the preliminary voters list and to pass
orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.
Petitioners' contention was that, the preliminary list contained names of
211 deceased persons and 1137 ineligible persons.
3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 12/1/2021, learned
standing counsel for the election commission submitted that
representations submitted by the petitioners were taken up on 8/1/2021
and after hearing them, the applications were dismissed. It was submitted
by the 4th respondent society that the petitioners were present in person
and they were heard before orders were passed. In the light of the above
submissions, which was recorded, the writ petition was held to be not
sustainable. Accordingly, it was closed reserving the right of the petitioners
to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. .
4. The review petition is filed on a premise that this Court had closed
the writ petition solely on the basis of the submission made by the learned
standing counsel for the election commission. It was submitted that,
statement of the third respondent was absolutely false. According to the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this was a purposeful
misstatement by the third respondent caused to be submitted through
athe standing counsel for the election commission. It is the case of the
petitioners that, though they had attended the office on 8/1/2021 and had
marked the attendance register, they were not in fact heard and nor any
orders passed on that day. It was contended that no such hearing was
done and no orders were passed rejecting their application. To
substantiate the contention that , the third respondent had not passed any
orders on 8/1/2021, learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied on
Annexure B, which was a copy of a petition filed before the 3rd respondent
requesting for a certified copy of the order of dismissal. According to the
petitioners, copy of the order was given to them only on 25/1/2021.
Hence, review petition is filed on the premise that the order passed by this
Court needs to be recalled and the matter is to be considered on merits .
5. The above contention was vehemently opposed by the learned
standing counsel for the election commission. It was submitted by the
learned standing counsel that, he made submissions on the basis of the
instructions conveyed by the election commission. It was reported that, the
petitioners attended the office, marked the attendance register and
thereafter they were heard. It was also stated that, after hearing the
petitioners, their applications were rejected. Due to shortage of time,
proceedings were recorded. Thereafter copy of that order was issued in
accordance with law, pursuant to Annexure B. Normally, there is no
practice of issuing such a formal order, it was submitted. It was further
submitted that, petitioners, though contended that 211 persons were dead
and more than 1100 persons were ineligible , they could not substantiate
their contentions with records.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners have gone to the office of the 3 rd
respondent Electoral Officer on 8/1/2021. Evidently, it was for the purpose
of hearing since the date was fixed for hearing the objections. Review
Petitioners had no case till 12/1/2021 that they were not heard. In the light
of the above and the assertion of the election commission that, they were
heard, I find no reason to disbelieve the submission of the election
commission. Further, petitioners have received a copy of the order, though
belatedly. It seems that the delay has been properly explained.
Having considered the entire facts, I find no merits in the review
petition. There is no scope for interference invoking Order 47 Rule 1 read
with section 114 of the CPC.
Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE-A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TRUE EXTRACT OF THE
FINAL VOTERS LIST APPROVED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE THIRD RESPONDENT ON 11.1.2021
ANNEXURE-B PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD
RESPONDENT, FOR COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED ON
THE OBJECTIONS TO THE PRELIMINARY VOTERS
LIST
