Advt. B. Sreekmar and N. Prakasan Nair vs Superintendent of Police and Others

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The 1st Petitioner claims to be a candidate in the election to the Kilimanoor Kasthoorba Service Co-operative Bank and the 2nd Petitioner claims to be the election committee convenor of a political front, which has sponsored candidates for the election. They have filed this writ petition seeking police protection for the smooth conduct of election to the Director Board of the Bank to be held on 22.5.2011 on the allegation that there have been instances of mal-practice in elections in the Bank ever since 1993. They would also submit that during the last election held in June, 2006, Respondents 6 to 9 and their henchmen attempted to forcibly disrupt the election process by threatening voters, which was prevented by the police personnel appointed in the polling booth. The Petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondents 1 to 4 to afford adequate and effective police protection for the smooth conduct of election to the Director board of the Kilimanoor Kasthoorba Service Co- operative Bank scheduled on 22.5.2011 at Special U.P.S, Choottayil, Kilimanoor.

b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondents 1 to 4 to take effective action upon Ext. P1 representation forthwith to avert any attempt to sabotage the election to the Director Board and to protect the electorates and the candidates by affording adequate and effective police protection.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader.

The Petitioners have not given details of any specific instance during any of the election ever since 1993 in the Bank, except a vague averment that in the election held in June, 2006, Respondents 6 to 9 had tried to disrupt the election process. But they themselves admit that the police had interfered at that time and avoided such malpractice. As such, based on the vague averment in the writ petition, we do not think that the Petitioners have made out a case for ordering police protection. In fact, the Petitioners themselves have stated that the police had discharged their duties during the election in June, 2006 without any orders from this Court. We have no reason to assume that the police will not do so during this election also. Therefore, we do not think that the Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed.