The court ruled that expelled committee members must challenge their expulsion in civil court, as the Administrator lacks authority to permit them to contest elections.

JUDGMENT :

K. NATARAJAN, J.

This petition is filed by the petitioner by challenging the order passed by the Additional District Judge- I, Kollam, in IA Nos.57 to 60 /2025 in OS No.1 of 2006.

2. Heard, Adv. Sri. Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Adv. Kiranlal, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Adv. Abdul Jawad K., learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

3. The case of the petitioners is that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by appointing the Administrator for conducting election and reporting to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10598-10599/2023 in civil appeal No.13708-13709/2024 dated 03.12.2024. Justice Ramakrishnan, a former Judge of this Court has been appointed for conducting election and the Hon'ble apex Court given liberty to the administrator to approach the District Court for any clarification. The draft schemes to be produced before the Civil Court. During the pendency of the suit, these petitioners said to be filed IA 57 to 60/2025, seeking permission of the Court for contesting the election, which came to be dismissed. Accordingly, petitioners approached this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the working committee has been dispelled the petitioners by meeting dated 07.04.2022 and prior to that the petitioners committee have expelled the present working committee vide meeting dated 25.12.2019. Subsequently, the petitioners were not permitted to contest the election. Therefore, the petitioners approached the civil Court for seeking permission to contest the election, but the Civil court dismissed the application, which is not correct. The Minutes of the meeting were not produced as directed by the Administrator by the present committee.

Therefore the very expelling of the petitioners by a meeting dated 07.04.2022 is illegal and void ab-initio and therefore the petitioners cannot be disqualified for six years for conducting the elections. Such being the case, they might have permitted to contest the election which is not correct. Whereas, the civil Court observed the order that the administrator to take appropriate decision in the matter but the administrator also filed a review Petition before the Court the said review is still pending. Such being the case there is no other option for the petitioners to approach this court for seeking permission to contest the election or directing the administrator to permit the petitioners to conduct the election and hence prayed for reliefs.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the2^nd respondent seriously objected the petition contending that the contention of the petitioners regarding allowing the respondent committee for holding election on 07.04.2022 has been challenged before this Court in RFA No.562/2010 filing IA No.7/2021 which came to be dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court. After the removal of the petitioners vide meeting dated 07.04.2022 has been notified to the petitioners by sending notices. Out of 11 members committee two persons have received notice, remaining persons have refused to receive the notices. However, they have approached this Court by filing I.A.No.7/2021 in RFA No.562/2010, which is nothing but consent to notice to them. They challenged the very allowing of the meeting by the Administrator on 07.04.2022 even they approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an SLP came to be dismissed. Thereafter they filed individual applications SLP No.6597/2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were also dismissed. Such being the case, without challenging the resolution of the meeting or meeting dated 07.04.2022 which expelled the petitioners. Th