Kerala High Court
Dinesh B vs State Co-Operative Election ... on 10 February, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
2025:KER:10414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 21ST MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 4242 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 DINESH B., AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. P. BHASKARAN NAIR, VALLIKATTUSSERY HOUSE,
EVOOR NORTH, EVOOR P.O., CHEPPAD,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690507
2 ROY MON P.V., AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. P.O. VARKEY, RESIDING AT ROSE PADINJAREKUDIYIL
HOUSE, MURIYAMANGALAM, MALALA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682305
BY ADVS.
NISHA GEORGE
GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
ANSHIN K.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION
3RD FLOOR, CO BANK TOWERS, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695033
W.P.(C)No.4242/2025 : 2:
2025:KER:10414
2 THE ELECTORAL OFFICER/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR
(ADMINISTRATION),
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
ERNAKULAM, ELECTION TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
OF THE KERALA POLICE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD. NO. 4348, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682020
3 THE RETURNING OFFICER/ ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(PLANNING)
OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
ERNAKULAM ELECTION TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE
OF THE KERALA POLICE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD. NO. 4348, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682020
4 THE KERALA POLICE HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LTD. NO. 4348
ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682020
BY ADV P.C SASIDHARAN
BY ADV C.M.NAZAR (SCEC)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.4242/2025 : 3:
2025:KER:10414
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the members of the
Kerala Police Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as "Society" for brevity),
the 4th respondent. The Society has about 55,000
members and the management of the affairs of
the Society is vested in a 15 member committee.
2. State Co-operative Election Commission,
by Ext. P1 notification dated 31.12.2024, notified
the election to the Managing Committee of the
Society. As per the election calendar, the date
2025:KER:10414
notified for publication of preliminary voters list
was 10.01.2025 and the last date for submitting
objections to the preliminary voters list was
17.01.2025. The date notified for scrutiny of
objections was 18.01.2025, and the date for the
publication of the final voters list was
21.01.2025. The date for making nomination was
28.01.2025, and the date fixed for scrutiny of
nominations was 29.01.2025. The date for
withdrawal of nominations was notified as
30.01.2025. The poll is scheduled for 15.02.2025.
3. The 2nd respondent Electoral Officer
2025:KER:10414
published the preliminary voters list on
10.01.2025. The petitioners submitted Exts. P2
and P3 objections, respectively, to the
preliminary voters list before the Electoral
Officer. The Electoral Officer passed Ext. P4
order rejecting the objections.
4. The final electoral roll was published on
21.01.2025. According to the petitioners, the
final electoral roll is defective and is not
prepared in accordance with Rule 35A(4) of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for
short, 'the KCS Rules'). It is stated that in respect
2025:KER:10414
of more than 3000 members, the voters list does
not contain any particulars except name. It does
not contain the father's/husband's name and
address of the members. The petitioners have
produced Exts. P5 to P18, which are extracts
from the final voters list of the 14 Districts in the
State to show that the list does not contain the
name of the father/husband and address of many
of the members of the Society. The petitioners
state that the final voters list includes persons
who have been relieved from service, those who
have retired, and even those who have passed
2025:KER:10414
away. The petitioners have produced a list of
such persons in respect of some Districts as Exts.
P19 to P28. The petitioners also state that Form
6B register is not properly maintained in the
Society. Majority members are not issued with
identity cards and even fake identity cards are
issued by the authorities of the Society. It is
further stated that since the final voters list
prepared for the previous election was contrary
to Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules, the State Co-
operative Election Commission issued Ext. P30
order quashing the election notification. It is
2025:KER:10414
contended that the final voters list published is
not in accordance with Rule 35A(4) of the KCS
Rules and a fair election cannot be conducted
based on such a list. The petitioners have,
therefore, preferred this writ petition seeking to
quash Ext. P1 notification and final voters list
and for direction to the 2nd respondent to publish
a proper voters list containing the particulars of
the members enumerated in Rule 35A(4), and for
a declaration that the final voters list does not
meet the statutory mandate of sub-rule (4) of
Rule 35A of the KCS Rules.
2025:KER:10414
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on
behalf of the Society wherein it is stated that the
Society is having more than 55000 members
right from the personnel belonging to Indian
Police Service to that of the Civil Police Officers,
Camp followers, Ministerial Staff, which includes
Administrative Assistants to the Last Grade
Servants. From the constituency of IPS Officers,
there was no contest and the candidate was
elected unanimously. It is stated that there are 29
candidates for the remaining 14 seats. It is
further stated that the petitioners are not
2025:KER:10414
contesting candidates in the election and they
cannot have any legal grievance about the voters
list since none of their rights are affected. It is
stated that the 1st petitioner had requested and
obtained a copy of the preliminary voters list
from the Electoral Officer, and the petitioners
submitted Exts.P2 and P3 objections, which are
verbatim. The objections are that, since the
voters list was published district wise, it is bad in
law, and that the names of certain persons are
included in other districts than the district in
which they are working. The further objection is
2025:KER:10414
that, no age is shown in the voters list. It is
stated that Rule 35A of the KCS Rules does not
mandate that the age of the person should be
shown in the voters list. The objections were
considered by the Electoral Officer and Ext. P4
reply was given. It is further stated that, though
the petitioners state that ineligible persons are
included in the voters list and that the name of
father or husband of certain members is not
shown, no specific averment or allegation is
raised in that regard before the Electoral officer
and the Electoral Officer has found that the
2025:KER:10414
details of the persons to be excluded and their
ineligibility are not stated in the objection. It is
stated that none of the persons who are alleged
to be ineligible to be included in the voters list
are impleaded in the writ petition and the
petitioners make only a general averment that
the voters list contains several persons who were
not included in the admission register. It is
averred that all the persons who are in the
admission register find a place in the voters list.
However, since all the details of the members not
available, the same cannot be incorporated. It is
2025:KER:10414
also stated that 6B Register is maintained
properly. The petitioners are included in the
voters list and are issued with identity cards. It is
further contended that since the election process
has already started, there cannot be any
interference with the voters list or the election
process. All arrangements for the conduct of
election have been made and the ballot papers
have been printed. The voters list running to
2200 pages has been printed and circulated. It is
contended that the election cannot be stalled at
the instance of two members who have no legal
2025:KER:10414
interest except personal interest.
6. Heard Sri. George Poonthottam, the
learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Sri.
C.M.Nazar, the learned standing counsel for the
State Co-operative Election Commission and Sri.
P.C. Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the
Society.
7. Referring to Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules,
Sri. George Poonthottam contends that the voters
list shall contain the admission number, name of
the member, name of father/husband and address
of such member. However, the final voters list
2025:KER:10414
published pursuant to Ext. P1 notification does
not contain these particulars of many of the
members. The learned senior counsel took me
through certain pages of Exts.P5 to P18, which
are extracts from the final voters list and submits
that, in many cases, the column for entering the
name of the father/husband is left blank and in
many cases, either the address of the members is
not given or is incomplete. It is contended that
such a voters list cannot be construed as one
prepared in accordance with Rule 35A(4) of the
KCS Rules, and a fair election cannot be
2025:KER:10414
conducted based on the same. He relied on the
decision in Velloor Service Co-operative Bank
Ltd., Kottayam v. State of Kerala and others
[2014 KHC 866: 2015 (1) KLT 38] and the
judgment in Ramla and others v. The Kerala
State Co-operative Election Commission and
others [Neutral Citation Number
2021:KER:54652] in support of his contention. It
is submitted that, since no valid electoral roll has
been prepared in accordance with the KCS Rules
and the roll includes ineligible members, the
election should be interdicted.
2025:KER:10414
8. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan would contend that
the writ petition is not maintainable and the
petitioners have to invoke the remedies available
under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969 (for short "KCS Act"). He
relies on the decisions in Shri Sant Sadguru
Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj)
Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State
of Maharashtra and others [(2001) 8 SCC
509], Ajitha Kumari & Others v. Priyadarsini
Vanitha Coir Vyavasaya Co-operative Society
(CVCS) Ltd. Cherthala and Others [2018 KHC
2025:KER:10414
528] and Denny V.P v. Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies (General) and Others
[2019 KHC 4954] in support of his contention. It
is further contended that in Exts. P2 and P3, no
objection regarding violation of Rule 35A(4) of
the KCS Rules was taken. The objection was that,
no age is shown in the voters list. Sri. Sasidharan
would refer to Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules and
submits that the Rule does not mandate that the
age of the member should be shown in the voters
list. It is contended that the objections shall be
direct and specific and the Electoral Officer is
2025:KER:10414
not expected to make a roving enquiry. Sri.
Sasidharan relied on the decision of this Court in
Vijayakumar v. Joint Registrar [1996 KHC 61:
1996(1) KLT 285], in support of the said
contention. It is further contended that none of
the persons who are alleged to be ineligible to be
included in the voters list are impleaded in the
writ petition.
9. Sri. C.M. Nazar, the learned counsel for
respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the writ
petition is not maintainable and that none of the
contentions raised in the writ petition were taken
2025:KER:10414
before the Electoral Officer. The objections taken
were vague. There were 111 objections to the
preliminary voters list and all objections were
scrutinized and the objectors were heard and
Ext. P4 order was passed.
10. Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules reads as
follows:
"(4) The State Co-operative Election
Commission shall appoint an Electoral
Officer from among the officers of the
concerned administrative department
who shall be responsible for the
publication of the list of members
qualified to vote at the election in
accordance with the provisions of the
2025:KER:10414
Act, rules and bye-laws as stood on a
date 60 days prior to the date fixed
for the poll. The list shall contain the
admission number, name of the
member, name of father or husband
and the address of such member.
Such list shall also contain the name
and other particulars of the delegate
in cases where the member is a
society or corporation or a statutory
or non-statutory Board, Committee or
other body of persons which is a
member of another society or
Government. It shall be the duty of
the Chief Executive of the concerned
society to prepare, up date the list as
per the Rules and submit voters list
duly approved by the Committee, to
the Electoral Officer [within thirty five
2025:KER:10414
days prior to the date fixed for
election] and render all assistance
required by the Electoral Officer. It is
the duty of the Electoral Officer to
publish the preliminary voters list in
Form No. 34 in the Notice Board of
the Head Office and branches if any,
of the society and call for objections if
any, on the voters list within seven
days of publication and publish final
voters list in Form No. 35 within
twenty days prior to the date fixed for
the poll. The final voters list so
prepared should be published in the
Head Office and branches of the
concerned society. A copy of such list
shall be supplied by the society to any
member on payment of such fees as
may be prescribed by the committee
2025:KER:10414
of the Society.
(underlining supplied)
This Court in Velloor Service Co-operative
Bank Ltd (supra) and Ramla (supra), observed
that the publication of a preliminary voters list in
terms of Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules,
containing among other particulars, the fathers
or husbands name of a member and the address
of such member is highly essential in order to
ensure that the members of the Society are
afforded with a reasonable opportunity to
exercise their statutory right of objecting to the
preliminary voters list in a fruitful manner. The
2025:KER:10414
said statutory right would be rendered nugatory,
if identification of the members is not possible as
per the preliminary voters list. In the case on
hand, the petitioners have received the copy of
the preliminary voters list and they submitted
their objections thereto. The objections raised in
Exts. P2 and P3 are that, the voters list was
published district wise, certain members' names
are included in districts other than the one where
they work and the age of the members is not
shown in the voters list. They did not have a case
that the voters list does not contain the name of
2025:KER:10414
the father/husband and address of such member.
Before the Electoral Officer, the petitioners did
not raise objection that the aforesaid mandate of
Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules is violated. Though
such a contention has been raised in the writ
petition, a perusal of just 100 pages from the
2200 page final voters list is not sufficient for
this Court to conclude that the list does not
conform to the mandate of Rule 35A(4). Whether
the final voters list conform to the mandate of
Rule 35A(4) of the KCS Rules is a matter for
evidence and can be looked into by the
2025:KER:10414
appropriate forum when a dispute in relation to
the final voters list is raised. As regards the
contention regarding inclusion of ineligible
persons in the voters list, the same is also a
matter that cannot be adjudicated in a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The alleged ineligible persons are not
named and are not parties to this writ petition.
11. In Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan
Swami (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the context of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 and Maharashtra Specified
2025:KER:10414
Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees
Rules, 1971, held that, the preparation of
electoral roll is part of the election process and if
there is any breach of the Rules in preparing the
electoral roll, the same can be called in question
after the declaration of the result of the election
by means of an election petition before the
Tribunal. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the
decision, the Court held as follows:
"11. In the aforesaid case, the Court
held that a writ petition under
Art.226 of the Constitution should not
be rejected on account of an
alternative remedy by way of election
2025:KER:10414
petition where, firstly, the challenge
is not a ground under the Act or
Rules for filing an election petition
and, secondly, where the validity of a
rule is challenged being ultra vires
and invalid. It is true that a tribunal
being a creature of an Act or the
Rules has a limited jurisdiction and it
is not open to a tribunal to decide the
validity of the Act and the Rules. But,
that is not the case here and,
therefore, the decision in the case of
Bar Council of India v. Surjeet Singh
(supra) is of no help to the case of the
appellant. In the case of Ramchandra
Ganpat Shinde v. State of
Maharashtra (supra), the parties to a
writ petition obtained a collusive
order by applying fraud on the Court
2025:KER:10414
and such an order was made basis of
the election. In that context, it was
held that so long as the order of the
High Court continues, the tribunal
would be bound by that order of the
High Court and, therefore, the writ
petition was maintainable and the
same cannot be thrown out on the
ground of an alternative remedy.
Again, that is not the case of the
appellant and, therefore, the same is
distinguishable. In Shreewant Kumar
Choudhary v. Baidyanath Panjiar
(supra), it was held that it was not
open to the tribunal to go behind the
entry in an electoral roll. This was in
the context of the provisions of
Representation of People Act, 1950
and 1951. It may be borne in mind
2025:KER:10414
that there is a distinction between
the scheme of the provisions of the
Representation of People Act, 1950
and the Representation of People Act,
1951. The Representation of People
Act, 1950 provides for the
delimitation of constituencies and
allocation of seats for purposes of
election to the House of the People
and the Legislatures of States and
preparation of the electoral roll,
whereas, Representation of People
Act, 1951 provides for conduct of
election. Under S.100 of the
Representation of People Act, 1951
one of the grounds amongst other is,
an election can be challenged where
there is non compliance of the
provisions of the Constitution or of
2025:KER:10414
the said Act and the rules or orders
made thereunder-meaning thereby
that breach of the Representation of
People Act, 1950 cannot be called in
question in an election petition filed
under 1951 Act. In that view of the
matter, the decision relied upon by
the appellant is distinguishable.
12. In view of our finding that
preparation of the electoral roll is
being an intermediate stage in the
process of election of the Managing
Committee of a specified society and
the election process having been set
in motion, it is well settled that the
High Court should not stay the
continuation of the election process
even though there may be some
2025:KER:10414
alleged illegality or breach of rules
while preparing the electoral roll. It is
not disputed that the election in
question has already been held and
the result thereof has been stayed by
an order of this Court, and once the
result of the election is declared, it
would be open to the appellant to
challenge the election of returned
candidate, if aggrieved, by means of
an election petition before the
election tribunal."
12. In Ajitha Kumari (supra), this Court
held that any dispute in relation to the final
voters list published by the Electoral Officer, in
exercise of his powers under sub-rule (4) of Rule
35A of the KCS Rules, is a dispute arising in
2025:KER:10414
connection with that election, which can be
raised before the Co-operative Arbitration Court
constituted under Section 70A of the KCS Act, by
invoking the statutory remedy available under
Section 69 of that Act, within one month from the
date of election.
13. In Denny V.P (supra), a Division Bench
of this Court following the dictum laid down in
Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (supra)
and referring to the decision in Ajitha Kumari
(supra), held as follows:
"In short, in view of the ratio of the
decisions of the Apex Court in Shaji
2025:KER:10414
K. Joseph's case and Shri Sant
Sadguru Janardan Swami's case
(supra) it would reveal that merely
because of illegality in the matter of
preparation of electoral roll including
inclusion of ineligible persons is
alleged and the materials before the
Electoral Officer are insufficient to
determine the question of ineligibility
of members to remain as voters
courts would not be justified in
interfering with the election process
once it is started because such
illegality, if established later, could be
dealt with appropriately in an
Election Petition. In the case on hand,
the fact is that Annexure-A4 has not
been under challenge. When the fact
is that such alleged ineligible persons
2025:KER:10414
are not at all removed from the
membership and also from the
preliminary voters list and taking
note of Annexure-A4, we are of the
view that it will only be just and
proper to permit the election go on
based on the final voters list already
published. At the same time, taking
note of the nature of the allegations
we are of the view that it is only just
and proper to direct the Returning
Officer to ensure that votes of 1255
members included in the final voters
list who are allegedly ineligible and
against whom already complaints
have been made, are put in a separate
box and after the election in
accordance with law the result can be
published. Needless to say that
2025:KER:10414
grievance with respect to the election
can appropriately be taken up by the
parties, in accordance with law."
14. Thus, any dispute in relation to the final
voters list published by the Electoral Officer, in
exercise of his powers under sub-rule (4) of Rule
35A of the KCS Rules has to be raised before the
Co-operative Arbitration Court invoking the
statutory remedy available under Section 69 of
KCS Act, within one month from the date of
election.
15. The final voters list was published on
21.01.2025. This writ petition is filed only on
2025:KER:10414
31.01.2025. By this time the election process has
reached an advanced stage and what remains is
only the poll. Any interference at this stage will
upset the election calendar.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
However, it is clarified that any observations and
findings in this judgment shall not prevent the
petitioners or any other person entitled to
maintain an election petition before the Co-
operative Arbitration Court, from raising all
disputes before that forum. It is also made clear
that if such a dispute is raised, it shall be
2025:KER:10414
considered and disposed of without being
influenced by any observations in this judgment.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
2025:KER:10414
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION
DATED 31.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED NIL
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED NIL
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT WHOSE PARTICULARS ARE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE FINAL VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE KANNUR DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
2025:KER:10414
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE KOZHIKODE DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE IDUKKI DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE THRISSUR DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
2025:KER:10414
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE KASARAGOD DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
WHOSE PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
FINAL VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE KOLLAM DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF SOME MEMBERS IN
RESPECT OF THE WAYANAD DISTRICT WHOSE
PARTICULARS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL
VOTERS LIST
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF IDUKKI DISTRICT
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF KANNUR DISTRICT
Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF KASARGOD DISTRICT
Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
2025:KER:10414
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT
Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT
Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF THRISSUR DISTRICT
Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT
Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO ARE
RETIRED FROM SERVICE AND ARE EXPIRED IN
RESPECT OF WAYANAD DISTRICT
Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION FORM SUPPLIED
TO A MEMBER BY THE EMPLOYEES SOCIETY
Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2019
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
2025:KER:10414
EXHIBIT THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REQUESTING
R4(a) FOR COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY VOTERS LIST
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
