As an exordium, I must remember that I am bound by the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & Another v. State of Maharashtra & Others ((2001) 8 SCC 509) and Vadathara District Co-operative Sugarcane Producers Union Ltd. v. Chandrakantbhai Thakorebhai Patel ((2005) 11 SCC 523) by which the courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are prohibited and restrained from interfering with issues relating to elections and specifically those concerning the Electoral Roll once notifications for such elections are published. I am aware that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly delineated the jurisdictional parameters of courts in relating to such disputes and has proscribed any form of interference once the process has begun. I keep this in mind while considering the nature of the reliefs that can be granted to the petitioners in these writ petitions.

2. These writ petitions are filed by the members of the Moothakara Fishermen Development Welfare Co- operative Society under the jurisdictional control of the third respondent. The Society operates under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and is presently being administered by an Administrator.

3. The controversy arose when proceedings were notified for the purpose of conduct of elections to the managing committee of the Society, which was resisted on various grounds by the petitioners. They appear to be essentially aggrieved by the manner in which the voters' list was prepared and published and they allege that several undeserving persons have been inducted into the list by the then managing committee. They, therefore, have filed these writ petitions seeking various prayers, including that the process of election be interdicted. Since these writ petitions contain substantially the same averments, make more or less identical allegations and have sought reliefs which are connected to each other, I deem it appropriate that these writ petitions be disposed of jointly by this judgment. For the purpose of convenience, W.P.(C)No.37802/2015 is treated as the lead case and reference to the parties in this judgment will be as per the manner in which they are arrayed in the said writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.

5. From the pleadings on record and the submissions made at the Bar, it is obvious that the contest primarily is as to the induction of certain persons into the published voters' list, which, according to the petitioner, had been done without authority by the then managing committee. They say that the managing committee had employed chicanery in admitting persons without the sanction of law and then even have the guile of misrepresenting before this Court regarding the persons who have been inducted and the persons who have been removed. I need not elaborate on this any further because these facts have been noticed by this Court in the detailed interim order issued on 21.12.2015. Two paragraphs of the said order would show the manner in which a learned Single Judge has considered these issues. The paragraphs are extracted as under:

"Prima facie observed, though the managing committee had inducted 258 persons, it made it look as if it admitted only 96 persons. It has also had the audacity to place on record that 43 members have been removed, but not 180. The learned counsel for the petitioners could demonstrate before this Court that it replaced the old members with new ones assigning them the same membership number. With this artifice, the fifth respondent made light of things: it would have us believe that only 96 were admitted and 43 were removed.

In my considered view, there is more than prima facie materials to conclude that the administrative committee has indulged in wholesale induction