Board of Directors of Thrissur District Police Co-operative Society Ltd. No.491, Thrissur v. Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/8TH MAGHA, 1935 ## **W.P.(C).No.905 of 2014 (K)** ----------------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S):- ------------------------ 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF - THE THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.491, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY SRI.U.RAJAN, VICE PRESIDENT. 2. K.P. RAJU CPO 5588, - MEMBER OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.NO.491, CHERPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN. ## RESPONDENT(S):- ---------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR - 680 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR - 680 001. 4. THE ELECTORAL OFFICER, - APPOINTED FOR THE CONDUCT OF ELECTION TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE THRISSUR DISTRICT, POLICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.491 (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), THRISSUR - 680 001) W.P.(C).No.905 OF 2014-K - 2 - ## 5. THE RETURNING OFFICER, APPOINTED FOR THE CONDUCT OF ELECTION TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.491, (UNIT INSPECTOR OF AYYANTHOLE UNIT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) THRISSUR - 680 001). ## ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Addl.6. R.S.PREETH, S/O.Y. RAJAS, MEMBER NO. 6473, THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.491, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.01.2014 IN I.A.No.688/2014). R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM. ADDL.6 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- W.P.(C).No.905 of 2014 (K) ------------------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:- --------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION NOTIFICATION. - EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER APPOINTING THE ELECTORAL OFFICER AND RETURNING OFFICER. - EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY. - EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02-01-2014. - EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY. - EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD OF MEMBERSHIP NUMBER 2387. - EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST AND LAST PAGE OF THE IDENTITY CARD REGISTER. - EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF DETAILS WITH REGARD TO IDENTITY CARDS ISSUED TO SRI.JOHNSON C.V. AND SMT.SUPRIYA JACOB BY THE SOCIETY. - EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGISTER OF SRI.WILSON. - EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REGISTER OF SRI.SHANMUGHAN. - EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE AUTHORIZING THE 1ST PETITIONER. - EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE. - EXT.P13 - TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. REGISTERED AGAINST SRI.RAVI. ## RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:- ------------------------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE R4(a) - TRUE COPIES OF OLD IDENTITY CARD IN 6A AND 6B. ANNEUXRE R4(b) - TRUE COPIES OF NEW IDENTITY CARDS IN 6A AND 6B. ANNEXURE R4(c) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28.12.2013. ## W.P.(C).NO.905 OF 2014-K ## **- 2 -** EXT.R6(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.12.2013. EXT.R6(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E(1)3340/2013/SCEC DATED 24.12.2013. EXT.R6(c) - TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.3876/13 DATED 28.12.2013. ( TRUE COPY ) vku/- K.Vinod Chandran, J. ------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.905 of 2014-K -------------------------------------Dated this, the 28[th] day of January, 2014 ## JUDGMENT The powers of the Kerala State Co-operative Election Commission (for brevity “Election Commission”) to interfere or stall the election procedure, after the same has been validly initiated by itself, is again up for consideration in the above writ petition. It is often been urged before this Court and also accepted in principle that the Election Commission appointed under Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) has a wider power of supervision extending up to the time of assumption of the Managing Committee to office; but this Court has been cautious in not conferring the Election Commission with all pervading influence over the affairs of the Society, merely for the reason that an election is being held to the Society. The overall supervision has to be confined to the election and it does not mean that in the context of an election being held, the Election Commission takes the reigns of the Society; to be pro-active in doing or undoing the actions of a validly elected - 2 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 Managing Committee; on purported allegation of such action being against the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as (“the Act”) and the Rules framed thereunder. That would be an overreach of the powers conferred on an Election Commission, which is not intended by the provisions of the Act and the Rules and in that context, it falls upon this Court to examine the facts so as to decipher whether the power has been exercised properly or not. 2. The Board of Directors of a Society and one of its members are before this Court assailing Exhibit P4 order of the Election Commission, cancelling the election scheduled to be held to the Managing Committee on 19.01.2014. Undisputedly, election was notified as per Exhibit P1 by the Election Commission, the 1[st] respondent herein, on a valid resolution taken by the Managing Committee of the Society. The Electoral Officer had also published the final voters list on 28.12.2013 as scheduled. On purported exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, but, however on a specific complaint made by one of the members of the Society, who is impleaded as the additional 6[th] respondent in the writ petition; the 1[st] respondent issued Exhibit P4 communication cancelling the - 3 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 elections. The allegation in the complaint was that the identity cards issued to the members of the Society were under Form No.6A and also under Form No.6B, while Rule 16A stipulated that the Identity Cards should be in Form No.6A; and the details of the members, as disclosed from the Identity Card, should be maintained in a Register, in the Society, in Form No.6B. Exhibit P4 referred to a resolution of a Managing Committee dated 27.12.2013, wherein a decision was taken to permit the members who have been issued with Identity Cards in Form No.6B also to participate in the election, which has been held to be illegal. A report of the Assistant Registrar (General) / Electoral Officer pointing out that sufficient time should be granted to rectify the defect was also noticed. It was directed that the election proceedings are cancelled for complying with Rules 16A and 35A of the Rules; for maintenance of proper Form No.6B Register and issuance of Form No.6A Identity Cards. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.P.C.Sasidharan would contend that the Secretary-in-charge had informed the Assistant Registrar that the discrepancy is not in the maintenance of Form No.6B Registers; nor has the Identity Cards been issued in Form No.6B. In certain Identity Cards issued from - 4 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 the Society, by a mistake in printing, it has been printed as “6B” in the place of “6A”. The petitioners assert that in fact all the members have been issued with Identity Cards in Form No.6A itself as seen in Appendix II and Form No.6B Register is maintained in accordance with the Act and Rules. The discrepancy is only in the printing error pointed out and that is why the Managing Committee took a decision to permit those persons also to exercise their franchise and sought for permission from the Assistant Registrar. The Electoral Officer had in fact published the final voters list on 28.12.2013 and had given a report as is revealed in Exhibit R6(c); on instigation and on extraneous considerations; which has led to the present cancellation of election by the Election Commission. The reason stated for cancellation is not of any consequence and does not in any manner jeopardise the democratic conduct of elections. It is also submitted that the cancellation would only be a stoppage of election, since no discrepancy as to the procedure till the publication of the final voters list is pointed out and directions are sought to resume the elections from the point at which it was stopped. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also would urge that in the facts and circumstance of the case, - 5 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 especially in the context of the Managing Committee's term expiring on 22.01.2014, the date of hearing of the writ petition, it is only fit and proper that this Court issues proper directions for the appointment of an Administrative Committee from the members of the Managing Committee now in existence. Since the matter was heard and final judgment could not be passed, this Court thought it fit to direct appointment of an Administrative Committee from the members of the existing Managing Committee and also issued an interim order on 22.01.2014 to that effect. 4. Sri.D.Somasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader (Co-operation)appearing for the State would stoutly resist the prayers of the petitioners. The State would place entire reliance on the supervisory powers of the Election Commission under Rule 35A as distinguished from the powers of the Returning Officer under Rule 35. The Managing Committee in office, according to the State, has stultified the democratic process of the election by not rectifying the defect of having issued Identity Cards under Form No.6B. This is purposefully done to keep away majority of the members from exercising their franchise, since Rule 35A(6)(n)(ix) mandates that a ballot paper can be issued only on production of From No.6A - 6 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 Identity Card. Such a Managing Committee cannot be allowed to continue in office; nor can any member of the said Committee be permitted to continue, especially since such a procedure has been interdicted by two separate Division Benches of this Court in _**Board of Director of Kottappady Service Co-operative Bank v. Joint Registrar**_ **[1994 (2) KLJ 795]** and _**Joint Registrar v. Chatha**_ **[1999** **(3) KLT 199].** The learned Special Government Pleader also raises a preliminary issue in so far as the Society having not been impleaded in the writ petition, which would warrant dismissal of the writ petition _in limine_ . 5. Additional 6[th] respondent, who is represented by learned counsel Sri.George Poonthottam, seeks to support the preliminary objection raised by the State and points out that the Society and the Managing Committee are two different entities, defined separately in the Act and one cannot represent the other. Learned counsel also points out the discrepancies in the issuance of the Identity Cards and also place before Court some of the Identity Cards alleged to have been issued by the Society which do not have either the signature or the seal of the Society. The Additional 6[th] respondent would stand by his complaint and contend - 7 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 that the defects pointed out by him have to be rectified; and the compliance of the statutory requirement is necessary before elections are proceeded with. The mere fact that elections were held on the previous occasion also, on the very same set of Identity Cards, cannot at all be countenanced when the Act and the Rules prescribe otherwise and the discrepancy is brought to the notice of the 1[st] respondent, the Election Commission. 6. With respect to the preliminary objection raised by the State that the Society is not a party to the writ petition, it has to be noticed that the Society would be a proper party in a writ petition filed, the subject matter of which is the elections to the Society. But, however, in dismissing the writ petition on that sole ground at the threshold, this Court is concerned with whether such impleadment is absolutely necessary and as to what prejudice would be caused to the Society if not heard in such a proceeding. The Society, definitely, has the status of a legal entity as distinguished from the Managing Committee and is often represented by the Secretary, who is the Chief Executive. It cannot be gainsaid that the Society, represented by the Secretary would have anything further to offer by way of pleadings in support or in opposition to the pleadings of all - 8 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 the three sides, placed on record. The alleged discrepancies are fairly clear and are accepted by all sides. No substantiation of the same is required from the executive authority of the Society. In considering the sustainability of the discrepancies, on which elections have been stalled, and either directing continuance of such elections or upholding the order of the Election Commission, no prejudice would be caused to the Society, since this Court would be issuing such orders on an interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules applied to the facts of the case. It cannot at all be said that on facts the conduct of the election to the Society or keeping in abeyance such elections till such discrepancies are rectified; would at all adversely or prejudicially affect the Society. In such circumstance, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is negatived. 7. The grounds on which Election Commission has attempted to cancel the election, by Exhibit P4, has been dilated in the earlier paragraphs. Essentially the dispute is that the Identity Cards have been issued in Form No.6B, while the Rule prescribes the issuance of Identity Cards in Form No.6A of Appendix II. Form No.6A of Appendix II is the form in which Identity Cards are to be - 9 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 issued, wherein serially from top to bottom the details of a member are required to be entered under item Nos.1 to 7 and below that is the signature/thumb impression of the member, as item No.8, and the date of issue and seal of the society as item No.9. Form No.6B, however, is a tabular form, again numbered as 1 to 8 horizontally, to be entered in a register. The details to be entered in both Form No.6A and Form No.6B are identical, while the vertical arrangement of items in Form No.6A ensures that the printing can be done in the form of a card; the horizontal arrangement of Form No.6B ensures such entries being made in a Register. That is the essential difference in Form No.6A and Form No.6B. 8. The allegation of the additional 6[th] respondent is that, to some members Identity Cards have been issued in Form No.6B. To counter the same, the petitioner has produced Exhibit P6, which has the title “IDENTITY CARD” with identical arrangement of the items, from 1 to 6 on one side and 7, 8 and 9, as indicated above; over-leaf. Exhibit P6 is in card form and conforms to the Identity Cards produced across the Bar by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as also the additional 6[th] respondent. The discrepancy is in so far as having printed “Form No.6B” under the - 10 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 title “IDENTITY CARD”. Hence, it cannot at all be said that the Identity Cards were issued under Form No.6B; which form, as per Appendix II, requires the details to be in horizontal arrangement and not in a vertical manner as is seen to be done in Exhibit P6 also, though the title shows “Form No.6B”. 9. The Registers maintained also have been produced before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, across the Bar, and this Court has examined few of them, which shows the details of the members and the photographs having been entered and affixed as required. The existence of Identity Cards without the seal and date of issue or the signature cannot at all be rectified at this point. The fear, of the respondent-State and the additional 6[th] respondent, that fake Identity Cards would be used to exercise franchise can be put at rest only by insisting on verification of the Identity Cards with the 6B Register; when disputes are raised. Keeping in abeyance, the conduct of elections is not a solution at all in prevention of impersonation. It is trite that any dispute raised could be looked into by the Returning Officer and cross verified with Form No.6B Register, the latter of which is maintained properly and no allegation is raised as against such maintenance either by the - 11 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 Electoral Officer or by the Election Commission. The mistaken printing is not relevant, since the form itself is as contemplated under Form No.6A of Appendix II. This Court is of the opinion that permitting a member who produces the Identity Card which has the script of “6B” instead of “6A” would not lead to any illegality, since the same being only an obvious mistake and the same can be cross-verified with Form No.6B Register. 10. It is asserted by the State that Exhibit P5, being a communication dated 27.12.2013, is not received by the Electoral Officer when Exhibit R6(c) was submitted to the 1[st] respondent. It is admitted by all sides that the Electoral Officer had published the final voters list. On the publication of the final voters list, the Electoral Officer becomes _functus officio_ in so far as the election procedure is concerned and what remains for the Electoral Officer, is the supply of ballot boxes, ballot papers, copy of list of voters and such other articles that may be necessary for the conduct of elections as per clause (m) of Rule 35A(6). The responsibility of the Electoral Officer, as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 35A, is also the publication of the list of members qualified to vote at the election in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws, as - 12 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 stood on a date 60 days prior to the date fixed for the poll. It is pertinent that the Electoral Officer had considered the objections submitted to it with respect to the draft voters list and had also published a final voters list. It was then that Exhibit R6(c) was issued purportedly on a communication issued by the 1[st] respondent, based on a complaint of the additional 6[th] respondent. 11. The report though not coming within the duties or powers exercised by the Electoral Officer, does not again speak of any discrepancy in publication of the voters list or the voters included or excluded from it. The report specifically refers to the objections considered and action taken, by the Electoral Officer in publishing the final voters list. The report then proceeds on the premise, that the request made by the Managing Committee of the Society to permit those members who have been issued with Identity Cards in Form No.6B is not a request made in accordance with law and such permission would violate the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules. It was also noticed that 3537 persons who were issued with Form No.6B Identify Cards could not be issued with Form No.6A, by the time the polling is commenced on 19.01.2014. Hence, it was recommended that the election be - 13 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 adjourned, so as to rectify the said defects. The Electoral Officer also did not seek for cancellation of the elections, which, however, the Election Commission proceeded to make, based only on the said report of the Electoral Officer. The complaint of the additional 6[th] respondent, Exhibit R6(a), also raises this dispute as the core issue, which the Election Commission referred to the Electoral Officer. This Court has already found that the issuance of Identity Cards with the legend of “Form No.6B” cannot at all be projected as an illegality, since the Identity Card is in the form prescribed under Appendix II as Form No.6A and the mistake is only in printing “Form No.6B” for “Form No.6A”. 12. The power of the Election Commission as has been argued by the State, cannot be considered as an all pervading power, as has been noticed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. This Court has further considered the distinction of the power conferred under Rule 35A and Rule 35 in the decision reported in _**A.K.Kunhimohammed v. Returning Officer & Others**_ **[2014 (1) KLJ 222].** In the circumstances, Exhibit P4 is found to be arbitrary and illegal and is, hence, set aside. 13. Having found so, the further procedure adopted is to - 14 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 be looked into, in the background of rival contentions made. While the petitioners contend that the election has to be resumed from the point at which the election was stalled, the respondents maintain that what has been done in the present case is cancellation, which would totally efface the procedure undertaken till the date of cancellation and the Election Commission would be required to make a fresh notification as resolved by the Managing Committee or the Administrator/Administrative Committee. Relevant on the point, is the decision of this Court in W.P.(C).No.25280 of 2013 dated 29.11.2013, paragraph 8 of which is extracted hereunder: 8. In the above circumstances, it is deemed fit that the election which was cancelled as per Exhibit P12 be resumed from the stage at which it was stopped and the polling conducted. The cancellation of the elections being found to be bad, it can only be deemed that the polling was stopped. A Division Bench of this Court in **Madhavan Namboodiri v. Kammaran [1992 (2) KLT 567]** held so: “It is no doubt true that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules as to what should happen if an election could not be held on the original date due to any reason not contemplated under the Rules. But that does not mean that the - 15 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 Committee is powerless. It is a firmly established rule that an express grant of statutory power carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. **==> picture [155 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** From what is stated above it has to be held that the Managing Committee has authority and jurisdiction to fix a new date for the election, if for any reason the election could not be conducted on the original date fixed, and that it is not necessary to repeat the whole process as contemplated under R.35. The election proceedings could be continued from the stage at which it was stopped ...” (sic). In the context of the facts coming to fore in the instant case, especially the final voters list having been published by the Electoral Officer and no procedural irregularity, till the publication of the final voters list, having been disclosed, this is also a fit case where the election can be directed to be resumed deeming the cancellation to be, in effect, a mere stoppage. It is so deemed and directions are issued to resume the election from the point at which it was stopped. 14. What remains is the consideration as to what is to be done in the meanwhile, as to the management of the Society. - 16 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 Admittedly the term of the Managing Committee expired on 22.01.2014 and it has been directed by an interim order, dated 22.01.2014, that an Administrative Committee be appointed with three members of the Managing Committee in office as on that date; with the District Police Chief as the Convenor, since he is the ex-officio President as per the Bye-laws of the Society. This Court does not find any reason to deviate from the interim order issued. 15. _**Board of Directors of Kottappady Service Co-operative Bank**_ ( _supra_ ) was a decision taken under Rule 35, wherein it was found that the Registrar has no power to allow a Managing Committee to continue in office after the expiry of its term. In the instant case also, this Court is not attempting to extend the term of the Managing Committee, since the provisions of the Act, as it stands now, does not permit the same. _**Chatha**_ ( _supra_ ) was a case in which the Managing Committee, whose term was expiring, had not co-operated with the conduct of elections. The continuance of the Managing Committee was specifically declined, following the decision in _**Board of Directors of Kottappady Service Co-operative Bank**_ ( _supra_ ) and also another decision of this Court, especially finding that on facts that would be only giving WP(C).No.905 of 2014 - 17 - them power through the back-door. The prayer to appoint members from the outgoing Managing Committee to the Administrative Committee was also specifically declined in the said decision. 16. Section 33 definitely confers a power on the Registrar to appoint an Administrator or an Administrative Committee; consisting of not more than three individuals. The provision, no doubt, confers a discretion on the Registrar, which cannot be said to be unbridled. This Court also cannot be found to be helpless in all circumstances to issue guidelines in exercising such discretion, going by the facts disclosed in each case. It is also pertinent that sub-section (1) of Section 33 speaks of specific instances wherein the Registrar may exercise such discretion and also provides for invoking such powers on the satisfaction of the Registrar, on such instances, as may come to pass as provided in clauses (a), (aa) and (b). This Court is not at all interfering with the discretion of the Registrar and in the instant case it has come to pass that a newly constituted Managing Committee could not be placed in office on expiry of the term of the earlier Managing Committee, only by reason of an order of the Election Commission, passed in the midst of the election procedure validly instituted by - 18 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 itself, which interdiction has been held to be illegal by this Court. Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are to be invoked to rectify manifest injustice and blatant subversion of statutory provisions. Instances are galore when the department and its officers have been too-willing pawns of the political masters in their attempt to take charge of the affairs of a society, other than by a properly held election. This Court, hence, does not find any infirmity in having directed the appointment of an Administrative Committee as directed above; in accordance with the Bye-laws and also in furtherance of the democratic principles, which is the bedrock of the co-operative movement. The interim order dated 22.01.2014 is made absolute. 17. The Administrative Committee now appointed in office is directed to issue publication in two vernacular newspapers having circulation within the district of Thrissur, for issuance of Identity Card under Form No.6A, so as to cure any discrepancy in the Identity Cards already issued and the substitution of such Identity Cards in the proper manner with all the details stipulated being entered. This shall be done, by resorting to issuance of Identity Cards till the previous day of the polling. There shall also be - 19 - WP(C).No.905 of 2014 a direction to the Administrative Committee, to pass a resolution for holding the elections within three months from today and the same shall be forwarded to the 1[st] respondent through the Assistant Registrar (General). The 1[st] respondent shall issue necessary notification and appoint an Electoral Officer, for the purpose of carrying on the ancillary duties subsequent to the publication of the voters list; the publication of which has already been done and the Returning Officer shall also be appointed for proceeding with the election as per the final voters list already published. The Election Commission shall issue necessary direction to the Returning Officer to permit any member who proffer Identity Cards with the script “Form No.6B” under the title “IDENTITY CARD” also to exercise their franchise, subject, however to cross-verification with the Form No.6B Register; provided the form is as indicated in Form No.6A of Appendix II of the Rules. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs. Sd/- vku/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge. ( true copy )