Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 47937
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
TRAINED NURSES' ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, REGISTRATION NO.199, KERALA STATE BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, PROF. RENU SUSAN THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE RETURNING OFFICER KERALA NURSES & MIDWIVES COUNCIL – Respondent
WA NO. 1664 OF 2025 | WP(C)NO.21657 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Romy Chacko
For the Respondents: Adv. N. Raghuraj, Adv. Rajit, Adv. Saju J Panicker
The court ruled that a writ petition cannot resolve disputes arising from completed elections and must follow alternative remedies available under electoral rules.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953 - Election process - Writ appeal challenging refusal to quash election notice and results based on eligibility criteria for candidates - Election held despite expulsion of certain candidates - Appellant's claims of mala fide and arbitrary exercise of power considered unsubstantiated due to the election's completion and absence of challenge to results - Alternative remedies under Council rules deemed applicable. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Limitations - Writ petitions cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of fact, particularly post-election events not challenged in the appropriate electoral or civil domains. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sought to annul an election notice and related notifications for breaching eligibility conditions based on internal organizational rules following the expulsion of candidates; elections concluded prior to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
Appellant lacked locus standi, as no personal rights infringed and no electoral remedy invoked prior to appeal; decision rendered moot by election completion.
Issues: Determination of eligibility of candidates under organizational rules and jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 after election completion.
Ratio Decidendi: Court concluded that substantial procedural violations require resolution through proper electoral or civil litigation avenues, not writ jurisdiction.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the intra court appeal and election disputes. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legitimacy of the election process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis on jurisdiction and standing. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
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 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.
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 decision of the Apex Court inK.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 inElection Commission of India, through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar & Others [2000 (8) SCC 216] to contend that the pr
