Court reaffirmed that election processes should not be interrupted over alleged electoral roll breaches; such issues can be contested through election petitions post-election.

JUDGMENT :

The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-

“i) declare that the respondents 4 and 5 who are not members 60 days prior to the date of poll are not entitled to vote in the election to be held pursuant to Ext.P3 election notification on 24-5-2025;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding and compelling the 3rd respondent not to allow the respondents 4 and 5 to vote in the election held pursuant to Ext.P3 on 24-5-2025;

iii) to dispense· with English Translation of vernacular documents;

iv) issue such' other appropriate writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice, and allow the costs of this proceeding to the petitioner. ”

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the inclusion of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in the final voters list published by the competent authority for the election to the Circle Co-operative Union, Devikulam.

3. On 15.03.2025, respondent No.2, the Circle Co-operative Union resolved to conduct election to the Union on 24.05.2025. The resolution was forwarded to the Election Commission. The Commission issued Ext.P3 election notification scheduling the election to the Circle Co-operative Union on 24.05.2025. The final voters list was published on 28.04.2025.

4. The petitioner challenges the inclusion of the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the voters list on the ground that those Co-operative Societies were placed within the administrative control of the Devikulam Assistant Registrar (General) office, only on 28.03.2025 as per Ext.P2 notification.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, for inclusion of the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the voters list, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 Societies should have been placed within the administrative control of the Devikulam Assistant Registrar (General) Office, 60 days prior to the date of voting. It is therefore submitted that the employees and the Board of Directors of respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not eligible to exercise their franchise in the election.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 challenges this contention stating that, the Rules mandate only that, the members shall be full time employees of those Societies as on the date of 60 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. The learned Standing Counsel further contended that as the final voters list has been published, this Court is not in a position to interfere with the election process and that the petitioner has alternate remedy as provided in Rule 136 of the KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES , 1969. The learned Standing Counsel relied on Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [2001 KHC 1667] and Denny V.P. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) and Others [2019 KHC 4954].

7. Rule 136 of the KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES RULES , 1969 read with Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, forms a complete code framed for adjudication of any dispute relating to the election to the Circle Co-operative Union.

8. In Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others [ 2001 (8) SCC 509 ], the Apex Court held thus:-

“9.….. 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 declarat