1. Petitioners are said to be members of the sixth respondent society.
They are aggrieved with the election, scheduled by Ext.P8 notification. The specific contention raised to challenge the election scheduled on 26.10.2014 is the fact that about 4000 members out of 14,000 total member of the society have been excluded from the voters list, on the purported enhancement of share value, which, according to the petitioners, was not notified at all. Petitioners contend that the election has to be stayed and liberty may be given to the members who have been denied such voting rights and the society may be directed to accept the enhanced share value from such members before conducting the election. The notification of the election was earlier published in the newspapers which does not have circulation in the area of operation. An interim stay of election was granted in a writ petition and subsequently this Court disposed of the same by Ext.P7 directing holding of elections with proper notice. It is pursuant to that, the present election has been notified.
2. Since the elections were notified on 26.10.2014 and the sixth respondent appears through counsel, the matter was heard in its entirety. The sixth respondent, on instructions, submits the following facts:
3. Primarily it is pointed out that none of the petitioners has raised any objection before the Electoral Officer, with respect to the draft voters list published within the time stipulated in Ext.P8, i.e. between 22.9.2014 and 24.9.2014. The person who is said to have filed the complaint produced in the writ petition as Ext.P10 has not joined the petitioners in filing the above writ petition. The petitioners have not filed any objection.
4. With respect to the enhancement of share value, the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the sixth respondent is that the share value was increased from Rs.10 to Rs.50 as early as on 21.8.2011. Publication was taken in two newspapers, Malayala Manorama and Veekshanam daily with respect to the proposed amendment and time was also granted between 3.1.2012 to 10.4.2012 for members to pay the enhanced share value. 350 members are said to have made such payment within the time stipulated. However, before the present elections were convened, the managing committee of the society has issued another notice on 28.5.2014 in the Mangalam daily, granting time to remit the enhanced share value, and some members are said to have made payments within the time stipulated.
5. Though the documents as such have not been produced, the counsel handed over the same across the Bar. In any event, these are all matters which would require a fact adjudication which this Court would not endeavour to do in a petition filed under Artile 226. It is also to be noticed that the very same three petitioners herein were before this Court, earlier, when a notification was made. They were before this Court seeking interdiction of the election on different grounds. Then the polling was to be conducted on 27.7.2014 and the petitioners approached this Court on 18.7.2014 when, admittedly, the draft voters list was published. There is no complaint that the draft voters list published in the earlier election notified was, in any way, tampered with by the managing committee in the election now modified. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a specific contention raised on the very same ground urged herein in the earlier petition. The petitioners rested contend without urging the plea, when the earlier writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7. The intention to somehow scuttle the election is clear. The ground pleaded earlier and not urged when the matter was heard cannot again now be raised.
6. The petitioners, having suffered Ext.P7, cannot turn around and challenge the election on a ground already urged, especially, since the polling is scheduled on 26.6.2014. It is also to be noticed that, despite the petitioners having raised such a contention in the earlier writ petition, they did not care to file an objection before the Returning Officer when the present notification was issued. Taking all the facts into consideration, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.