A writ of mandamus can only be issued where a statutory duty exists and there has been a failure to perform it; it cannot mandate actions contrary to statutory provisions.

1. The appellant, who is the President of the Managing Committee of Pallickal Service Co - operative Bank Limited, which is a society registered under the Kerala Co - operative Societies Act, 1969 , filed W.P.(C)No.41003 of 2024, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Unit Inspector, Pandalam, who is the Returning Officer for the election to the Managing Committee of Pallickal Service Co - operative Bank Limited, to arrange a separate counter outside the polling station in Government Higher Secondary School, Thengamam, from where the identity of the members can be verified in the presence of the departmental officials, employees of the Bank and Police officials. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Returning Officer to make arrangements to install CCTV cameras at the entrance of the polling station and to videograph the entire polling process scheduled to be held on 24/11/2024 at Government Higher Secondary School, Thengamam, till the declaration of results, in the premises where the election is conducted, including the entry point of the venue and also at the polling station; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to verify the identity cards before allowing a person to cast his / her vote as mandated under law; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to conduct election to the Managing Committee of Pallickal Service Co - operative Bank Limited in a free and fair manner, enabling the members having identity cards issued by the Bank in Form No.6A alone to cast their votes.

2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 19/11/2024, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent Returning Officer to strictly adhere to the provisions under R.35A(6)(n)(ix) of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules, 1969 in the matter of identifying the voters who came to cast their votes in the polling scheduled to be held on 24/11/2024. The respondent was directed to arrange for videography of the entire polling process, at the expense of the appellant, and to ensure the presence of sufficient number of police personnel for peaceful conduct of the election, by forwarding necessary requisition to the District Police Chief. The relief sought for in the writ petition to arrange a separate counter outside the premises of the polling station to verify the identity of the members was declined.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent of denying the first relief sought for in the writ petition, the appellant - petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under S.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant - petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Co - operative Election Commission for the respondent Returning Officer.

5. After referring to the averments in paragraphs 6 to 10 of the writ petition and also Ext.P3 communication dated 13/08/2024 of the District Police Chief, Pathanamthitta, addressed to the Joint Registrar of Co - operative Societies, Pathanamthitta, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would argue that the learned Single Judge committed a grave error while declining the first relief sought for in the writ petition.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala State Co - operative Election Commission would submit that the first relief sought for in the writ petition is not in tune with the requirements of R.35A(6)(n) of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules, which deals with the arrangements to be made in the p