Nelliparambil Raghavan and Others vs State of Kerala and Others

K. Narayana Kurup, J.—Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 6, I am disposing of the Original Petition itself in the following manner.

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the change of venue of the election to the Managing Committee of the Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 3035 on 3rd January 1993. The original venue was fixed at the bank building itself as per Ext. P-1, which was subsequently changed as per Ext. P-2 to Chittur Government U.P. School. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioners that the change of venue is rendered with ulterior motives to stultify the polling and to favour certain persons who owe allegiance to the political party in power. He further contends that Ext. P-2 bristles with malafides and is vitiated and hence liable to be interdicted by this Court. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner''s that a free and fair polling will not be possible if the polling is conducted at the new venue. He has got a further case that the change of venue is without jurisdiction.

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the change of venue is occasioned on account of the fact that the original venue was found to be unsuitable having regard to the precarious law and order situation obtaining in that place. The original venue was fixed at the bank building, near a temple, namely, Puthezhath Devi Temple, Originally it was proposed to use the temple premises also in connection with the polling which was subsequently found to be not in public interest and prejudicial to law and order. So it was decided to have the change of venue to Chittur Government U.P. School.

Heard counsel for the Respondents 4 and 6 who has reiterated the contentions made by the learned Government Pleader.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 and 6, I am of the opinion that this, is not a fit case which merits interference in exercise of the powers conferred on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as according to me, the Petitioners are not entitled as of right, to insist for the election to be held at a particular venue.

In matters like fixing of venue of election, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the statutory authorities and come to a conclusion independently. The suitability of the venue for the conduct of election is a matter for the statutory authorities concerned to assess taking into account various factors. This Court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the authorities concerned and come to its own conclusion applying its own perspective. as to which place is more suitable for the venue of election. It is better left to the wisdom of the authorities themselves. I therefore decline to exercise the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, I make it clear that the authorities shall take adequate precautionary measures to see that the polling is conducted without any let or hindrance from any source whatsoever. Learned Government Pleader undertakes to communicate a copy of this judgment to the authorities concerned forthwith.

Original petition is disposed of accordingly.