Kerala High Court
Trained Nurses' Association.Of India vs The Returning Officer on 28 October, 2025
W.A.No.1664 of 2025
: 1 :-
2025:KER:80354
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 1664 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.21657 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
TRAINED NURSES' ASSOCIATION.OF INDIA,
REGISTRATION NO.199, KERALA STATE BRANCH,
REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, PROF. RENU SUSAN THOMAS,
PRINCIPAL, WELCARE COLLEGE OF NURSING,
MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-, PIN - 682314
BY ADV.ROMY CHACKO
BY ADV SRI.ROY CHACKO
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE RETURNING OFFICER
KERALA NURSES & MIDWIVES COUNCIL, KNMC OFFICE, RED
CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695035
2 SHRI. M.V.SUDHEEP,
AGED 52 YEARS
TNAI 41753 MUDARAPILLY MANA, NEDUPUZHA VILLAGE,
NEDUPUZHA PO, THIRISSUR DISTRICT.OUSE, PIN -
680007
3 MS. ANEESA S.A.
AGED 42 YEARS
SHANY MANZIL, AIKARAPADI PO, PULIKAL VIA,
MALAPPURAM., PIN - 673637
W.A.No.1664 of 2025
: 2 :-
2025:KER:80354
4 MRS. PRASANNA V..NAIR
AGED 36 YEARS
VIJAYA NIVAS, KARAKKADU PO, CHENGANNUR-, PIN -
689504
5 THE KERALA NURSES & MIDWIVES COUNCIL ( SOUGHT TO
BE IMPLEADED )
REPERESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RED CROSS ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ( SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED ),
PIN - 695035
BY ADVS.
SHRI.VIVEK MENON R1
SHRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD R3
SRI.N.RAGHURAJ (SR.) R1
ADV.RAJIT R2
SRI.SAJU J PANICKER R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON 28.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1664 of 2025
: 3 :-
2025:KER:80354
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1664 of 2025
---------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This intra court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.21657/2025, challenging the judgment dated 03.07.2025
dismissing the writ petition.
2. The facts in brief, as are necessary for the disposal of this
writ appeal, are as follows:
The appellant/petitioner claims to be the President of the
Trained Nurses' Association of India (for short, 'TNAI'). The main
relief sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P1 election notice
dated 20.01.2025 and Ext.P5 notification dated 11.02.2025
showing respondents 2 to 4 as candidates contesting to the post
of Member of the Kerala Nurses & Midwives Council, from the
quota reserved for Members of TNAI. Ext.P1 notice was issued by
the first respondent-Returning Officer for the purpose of holding
election for six posts, to be elected by the Registered Nurses
from among the nurses registered in Part A of the register of
: 4 :-
2025:KER:80354
nurses. One among the six has to be elected from the members
of TNAI. When Ext.P1 was issued, TNAI sent Ext.P2
communication dated 25.01.2025 to the Returning Officer stating
that, as per its bye laws, the candidate, endorsed by TNAI
National or State Branch Executive Committee, can alone contest
the election. According to the appellant, it is one Shri.Dileep
M.K., who is approved to represent the TNAI in the election.
Despite the said decision taken by the appellant, respondents 2
to 4 submitted nominations to the post of Council member under
the label of TNAI, and this is confirmed by Ext.P5 notification.
Even though TNAI issued notices to respondents 2 to 4 directing
them to withdraw their nomination, they did not heed to the
request. Consequently, Ext.P10 show cause notice dated
04.03.2025 was issued to respondents 2 to 4, for which there
was no response from their side. Later, as per Ext.P13 to 15
decisions dated 09.05.2025, respondents 2 to 4 were terminated
from the membership of TNAI. It is in such circumstances, the
appellant filed the writ petition seeking the afore prayer and also
to declare that the nomination submitted by respondents 2 to 4
and accepted by the first respondent are invalid and have no
sanction of law.
: 5 :-
2025:KER:80354
3. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials
on record and after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ
petition.
4. Heard Adv.Romy Chacko, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant, Adv.N.Raghuraj, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the first respondent, Adv.Rajit, the learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent, Adv.Saju J.Panicker, the
learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to Section 3(d)
of the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953, is not at all correct,
since the election process to the Council was not complete when
respondents 2 to 4 were removed from the membership of the
appellant association. He, by relying on the decision in
N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency
& another [(1952) 1 SCC 94] contended that the term 'election',
if given a wider interpretation encompass the entire process
culminating in a candidate being declared elected and, if so, the
appellant is entitled to get a declaration as sought for. He
submitted that respondents 2 to 4 have not challenged Exts.P13
to P15 termination orders and, therefore, in the light of the
: 6 :-
2025:KER:80354
decision of the Apex Court in K.Venkatachalam v. A.Swamickan
and another [(1999) 4 SCC 526], this is a fit case where the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution can be invoked to quash Ext.P5. He further relied on
the decision in Election Commission of India, through Secretary
v. Ashok Kumar & Others [2000 (8) SCC 216] to contend that
the prayers sought in the writ petition is for completing the
election proceedings in a fair manner and to cull out the mala
fide and arbitrary exercise of power by the first respondent, and
therefore, is an apt case where the discretionary relief ought to
have been exercised by this Court. He further submitted that the
appellant has no other alternative efficacious remedy, than to
approach this Court by filing this writ petition.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior counsel for the first
respondent submitted that the writ petition has been filed before
the completion of the election process, and as on date,
considerable water has flown under the bridge. He submitted that
the results of the election to the Council has been declared on
04.07.2025 and the candidate sponsored by the appellant was
defeated and it is the 3rd respondent, who was the successful
candidate. He submitted that, thereafter, the Government, by a
: 7 :-
2025:KER:80354
notification in the Gazette, has also constituted the Council on
13.07.2025 and it has started functioning. Hence, according to
the learned Counsel, the writ petition itself has become
infructuous, since the appellant cannot succeed without
challenging the election result and the Government Notification
constituting the Council. He further argued that the appellant has
an alternate remedy to challenge the election process as per Rule
29 of the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Rules 1972 and, therefore,
the learned Single Judge ought not have exercised the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. He added that,
even if it is assumed that Rule 29 is not applicable, since there
are disputed questions of facts regarding the expulsion of
respondents 2 to 4, the remedy of the appellant is else where. He
further submitted that the appellant did not have a case that
respondents 2 to 4 were disqualified as on the date of scrutiny of
the nomination papers and, none from the side of the appellant
raised any objection at that time. He added that the Returning
Officer, after completing the scrutiny, has no power to interfere
with the election process except, to take steps to publish Ext.P5
notification. He further, by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Others
: 8 :-
2025:KER:80354
[2002 (1) SCC 33] and the decision of this Court in State of
Kerala v. T.K.I Ahamed Sherief [2025 KHC 1067] contended
that the appellant has no locus standi to file the writ petition,
since it has no independent right for itself. He also submitted that
the person sponsored by the appellant and who was unsuccessful
in the election, has not challenged the election.
7. The learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondent
supported the contentions raised by the first respondent. They
added that the expulsion of the 3rd respondent (the successful
elected candidate) by the appellant association has been
challenged by filing O.S.No.870/2025 before the Munsiff Court
Ernakulam, and it is under consideration before that Court. They
also added that the appellant has been restricted by an order of
prohibitory injunction from obstructing the 3rd respondent in
participating in the day to day affairs of TNAI. Hence, according
to the learned counsel, this Court must not invoke its
extraordinary jurisdiction and decide the disputed question of
facts, which is now pending consideration before the Civil Court.
8. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and
the materials on record, we find considerable force in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. As
: 9 :-
2025:KER:80354
stated earlier, the appellant is challenging Ext.P5 notification
wherein, respondents 2 to 4 have been shown as candidates
contesting to the post of member of the Kerala Nurses and
Midwives Council, from the quota reserved for the members of
TNAI. It is the case of the appellants that, after issuing Ext.P1
notification and before completion of the declaration of the result,
respondents 2 to 4 were terminated/expelled from the
membership of the appellant and, therefore, are not eligible to be
elected. It is an admitted fact that the elections are now over and
the results have already been declared. It is also an admitted fact
that the candidate sponsored by the appellant did not win the
election and it is the 3 rd respondent, who has been declared
elected. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the third
respondent, especially paragraph 7, clearly shows that she has
disputed her termination/expulsion from the membership of the
appellant by means of Ext.P14 order dated 09.05.2025. It is
contended by her that she was not given any notice and was not
heard before the decision was taken and that there is a blatant
violation of the principles of natural justice, in her expulsion. It is
also contended that, her expulsion was a post-nomination event
and cannot retrospectively invalidate nominations already
: 10 :-
2025:KER:80354
accepted. This Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot, in any manner, decide
disputed questions of fact, such as to whether the prescribed
procedure has been followed or as to whether there is any
violation of the Act or Rules, while issuing Ext.P14 order. This
Court also cannot decide regarding the question whether notice
has been issued, whether the party was heard and as to whether
any enquiry was conducted before issuing Ext.P14. The Apex
Court in the decision in Kurapati Maria Das v. Dr.Ambedkar Seva
Samajan and others [(2009) 7 SCC 387], after considering the
decision in K.Venkatachalam's case (cited supra) distinguished
it, and categorically held that when there is a disputed question
of fact (in that case regarding the caste of a person), the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution will not be available. It was
also held that the decision in K.Venkatachalam's case(cited
supra) does not lay down any general proportion that even where
there is a specific remedy of filing an election petition and even
when there is a disputed question of fact, still the remedy of writ
petition under Article 226 would be available. If so, in the light of
the afore dictum and considering the fact that this Court cannot
decide the disputed question of fact, as to whether the 3 rd
: 11 :-
2025:KER:80354
respondent was expelled from the appellant as per law, we are of
the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary
jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
At this juncture, we will also take note of the fact that
O.S.No.870 of 2025 filed by the third respondent against the
appellant and the others, challenging her expulsion is pending
before the Civil Court and interim orders have been passed in it.
9. Another factor, which comes to fore in this case, is the
alternative remedy available under Rule 29 of the Kerala Nurses
and Midwives Rules, 1972, to challenge the election. Rule 29
provides that the Council may, of its own motion or on objection
made in writing by any elector including a candidate, declare any
election that has been held to be void on account of any sufficient
cause. If so, we are of the view that the appellants can very well
approach the Council, seeking to invoke its jurisdiction to get the
declaration as sought for. Now, even if it is assumed that Rule 29
does not provide a remedy to the appellant association, we are of
the considered view that, since disputed questions of facts are
involved in this case, the remedy of the appellant will be to
approach the Civil Court highlighting its grievance.
10. Be that as it may, a perusal of the first paragraph of
: 12 :-
2025:KER:80354
the writ petition would go to show that the appellant Association
has filed the writ petition not to espouse the cause of the
Association or any of its members and is not seeking any relief
for and on behalf of the members of the Association. It is a
settled law, as held in the decisions in Ghulam Qadir's case and
T.K.I.Ahamed Sherief's case (cited supra), that the rights under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by
an aggrieved person, except in the case where the writ prayed is
for Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto. One exception available to
this Rule is public interest litigation. In other words, the existence
of the legal right of the petitioner, which is alleged to have been
violated, is the foundation for invoking jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226. Though a liberal approach has to be
adopted by the Constitutional Courts, even then, the person
approaching the writ court must satisfy that the action impugned
by him is adverse to his individual/ personal rights traceable to
some source in some statutory provision. If a person filing the
writ petition is found to be a stranger, he has no personal right of
his being infringed directly , then the writ petition will not be
maintainable. If so, in the light of the afore propositions of law
and in the light of the averments in the writ petition, as extracted
: 13 :-
2025:KER:80354
afore, we are also of the view that the appellants has no locus
standi to file the writ petition, seeking the afore reliefs. At this
juncture, we will keep in mind that the person who stood the
election, under the platform of the appellant and who did not get
elected has not espoused his grievance till date.
In the light of the afore discussions, we are of the view that
the appellant is not entitled to get the reliefs as sought for, by
invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. If so, for reasons than the one
stated by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the
writ petition itself is only liable to be dismissed. Ergo, we find no
merit in this writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
Judge
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
Judge
dpk
