Election processes must adhere strictly to established procedures and court directives to ensure fairness and impartiality.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.667/2010 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court-I, Kozhikode and the respondents are the defendants therein. The first petitioner is ‘The Association for Welfare of the Handicapped’ (AWH), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act , 1860 with the object of aiding the differently abled. As per Ext.P1 judgment, the suit was decreed as follows:

“1. It is hereby declared that, as on 01.04.2008, AWH was having 42 members. (Since D2 is no more, as on today there are only 41 members are available) A commission shall be appointed by the court for supervising the general body meeting of the members of AWH and for the election of executive committee members consisting of 13 members including the office bearers. The general body meeting and election shall be conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Ext.A5 bye-laws, after giving notice to all the aforesaid members. The commissioner appointed by the court shall act as the returning officer in the election. The entire process of election shall be completed within a period of two months from this day.”

2. Challenging Ext.P1, AS No.1/2017 was filed before the Sub Court, Kozhikode and the Sub Court, by judgment dated 21.12.2017, allowed the appeal in part and set aside the judgment and decree of the Munsiff Court, and a modified preliminary decree was passed holding that there were only 17 members of AWH. It directed the election of a 13-member Executive Committee from among them.

3. Against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court in AS No.1/2017, RSA Nos.111/2018, 146/2018, 149/2018 and 232/2018 were filed before this Court and this Court, by common judgment dated 17.08.2023, allowed the RSAs and the decree and judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, and that of the trial Court was restored.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.53444/2023. The Supreme Court granted leave and admitted the matter as Civil Appeal Nos.3734–3735 of 2024.

5. While so, the respondents filed I.A. No.17/2024 in O.S.667/2010 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct election to the Executive Committee as per Ext. P1 judgment. By Ext. P3 order dated 03.06.2024, the learned Munsiff appointed Adv. C.K. Madhusudan as Advocate Commissioner and directed completion of the election process within two months.

6. The petitioners filed I.A. No.240579/2024 in Civil Appeal Nos.3734–3735 of 2024, seeking stay of the election. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by Ext. P4 interim order dated 20.11.2024, issued the following directions:

(i) Let the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court, as per the impugned judgment under challenge, declare the date of election after complying with the necessary basic procedures for conducting election.

(ii) An election shall be conducted, on the date fixed by the Court appointed commissioner.

(iii) 23 persons whose rights to cast votes are under challenge be permitted to cast vote in one box and the votes cast by the others whose such rights are not at issue be put in a separate box.

(iv) After the election, the right to cast votes of the aforesaid 23 persons would be decided in these appeals and the question whether such votes are to be counted or not to be counted would depend upon the outcome of the pending appeals. The counting and declaration of result of the election shall be done only after obtaining permission from this Court.”

7. Pursuant to Ext. P4 order, the Advocate Commissioner filed Ext. P5 interim report on 13.12.2024 along with a redrafted election notification. It is contended by the petit