Sree Narayana Charitable Trust v. M Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2015/18TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 578 of 2015 () IN FAO.102/2015 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN FAO 102/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-06-2015 REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------ 1.
SREE NARAYANA CHARITABLE TRUST GURUDEVAPURAM, CHENKOTTUKONAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ( REP. BY K.JYOTHIS, SECRETARY IN CHARGE) SUJITH KUMAR R.
S/O RAMACHANDRAN MADHOM, 8, ULLOOR GARDENS ULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011 K.K.KUNJUMAKAN CRA - 106, CHAYAKKUDI ROAD PETTAH, TVPM 695 024 4.
M.S.RAVI S/O LATE K.SUKUMARAN PLAMOODU HOUSE KAUMUDI BUILDINGS PETTAH, TVPM 695 024 5.
ER.K.JYOTHIS MELAPURAM, MRA 170 OTTUKAL STREET, KAITHAMUKKU TVPM 695 024 6.
ER.G.SAMPATH RAGAM, MANNANTHALA TVPM 695 015 7.
R.JAYAPRAKASH ADVOCATE, ANANDA BHAVAN VEERALAM ROAD, ATTINGAL 695 101
RP.NO.578/2015 8.
LT.COL.S.R.BABU (RTD) KRISHNANJALI VARAMBASSERI ROAD KUNNUKUZHI TVPM 695 035 9.
D.ARAVIND S/O LATE DIVAKARAN BHADRADEEPAM KALLAMPALLI, TVPM 695 011 10.
B.GOPI POURNAMI, THUNDATHIL TVPM 695 581 P.P.CHELLAPPAN SAUMYA, OOLANKUZHI ANAYARA, TVPM 695 029 12.
DR.A.G.RAJENDRAN DARSANA, POOJAPURA TVPM 695 012 13.
AMRITHA LAL ROY S/O SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE BABA NIVAS, PEROORKONAM LANE SREEKARYAM, TVPM ER.SUNEETH NATARAJAN S/O NATARAJAN GURU VIHAR, CHILAMBIL LANE GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM, TVPM 695 017 BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS ---------------------------- 1.
M.RADHAKRISHNAN S/O T.K.MADHAVA PANICKER AGED 69 YEARS RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER, ALUMMOOTTIL POTHUJANAM ROAD KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND CONVENOR OF THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE 1ST PLAINTIFF TRUST
RP.NO.578/2015 K.PREMAN, S/O LATE KESAVA PANICKER, AGED 77 YEARS KAILAS, HOUSE NO.32 PANACHAMOODU LANE PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND JOINT CONVENOR OF THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE FIRST PLAINTIFF TRUST RETURNING OFFICER SRI.N.KARUNAKARAN ADVOCATE, VANCHIYOOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035 ( IMPLEADED) BY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR BY SRI.S.SUJIN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.578 OF 2015 IN F.A.O. No.102 OF 2015 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of July, 2015
ORDER
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This review petition is filed by the appellants in the appeal. This Court had disposed of the appeal by the judgment dated 25.6.2015 and certain directions have already been issued in paragraph 8. In this review petition, the concern raised is that the Returning Officer who held the election has not stated about the number of votes that he had considered as invalid or otherwise not counted. It is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Balagovindan that a perusal of the report of the learned Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court, who acted as observer and the report of Returning Officer attached to it do not reveal the details of those facts.
We heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan
RP No.578/2015 appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Advocate Commissioner Sri.Pirappancode V.Sudheer.
4.
On the previous occasion when this review petition came up, we had directed the learned Advocate Commissioner to get instruction from the Returning Officer with regard to this aspect. It is submitted today that the ballot papers have been properly kept and he has handed over the same to the Adhoc Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.Balagovindan submitted that these aspects will have to be cleared before declaration of results of the election. 5.
As far as the said point is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan submits that already certain directions have been issued by this court enabling the appellants also to approach the court concerned and the consideration of either the validity or invalidity of votes polled is not a matter coming within the scope of the appeal.
6.
Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we are also of the view that in the light of the direction already issued by this Court permitting the appellants, respondents or any other persons who are
RP No.578/2015 parties before the District Court to file appropriate application seeking for interim orders in the matter. The same will be sufficient. As far as the issue raised in the review petition also, concerning the absence of details of the votes which were not counted or which have been treated as invalid, it is appropriate that the appellants approach the District Court itself by filing necessary application, which will be considered with all expedition by the District Court along with the application which was directed to be considered by this Court in the appeal. The review petitioners are free to raise any other points, if they wish. With the above observation, the review petition is disposed of. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH,JUDGE sv.