JUDGMENT : V. CHITAMBARESH, J. 1. This Writ Appeal against the judgment in Akathethara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Palghat District v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2015 KHC 465) raises an interesting question. Whether the names of the contesting candidates can be printed in different colours on the ballot paper indicating the political party to which they belong is the question posed for answer. The issue arises under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘the Act’ for short) and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (‘the Rules’ for short) framed there under. The State of Kerala, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies and the State Co-operative Election Commission are in appeal before us. 2. The learned single Judge has acceded to the request of the respondent society registered under the Act to print the names of the contesting candidates on the ballot paper in different colour shades. The learned single Judge has opined that allotment of different colours to the candidates or their panel would help the voter (many of whom are allegedly illiterate) to make a correct choice. Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules which impeded such a course was declared ‘undemocratic and unconstitutional’ and Exts.P6 and P7 circulars in vogue were quashed. The circulars clarified that the ballot paper shall be in white colour with the names of the candidates printed in the same colour and that different colours shall not be used. The matter remains academic since the term of the committee of the society has expired after an election conducted using coloured ballot papers pursuant to an interim order in the Writ Petition. 3. We heard Mrs. K.R. Deepa, Senior Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. M.P. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the respondent society. 4. Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules is as under: “(viii). Every member who desires to exercise his right of vote, shall subject to the provisions of Clause (ix), be supplied with a uniform ballot paper containing the names of contesting candidates arranged in the alphabetical order, either printed, type written or cyclostyled according to convenience, on the ballot paper. 4. Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules is as under: “(viii). Every member who desires to exercise his right of vote, shall subject to the provisions of Clause (ix), be supplied with a uniform ballot paper containing the names of contesting candidates arranged in the alphabetical order, either printed, type written or cyclostyled according to convenience, on the ballot paper. The ballot paper shall be serially numbered and shall also bear the seal of the society and also the signature of the Returning Officer and further contain a column for the voter to inscribe a mark (x) against the names of persons to whom he wants to vote.” (emphasis supplied) Therefore the following are the essentials of a ballot paper: (a) The names of the contesting candidates arranged in an alphabetical order. (b) The names of the contesting candidates printed, type written or cyclostyled. (c) Uniform ballot paper serially numbered for supply to every member who desires to vote. (d) Ballot paper to bear the seal of the society and the signature of the Returning Officer. (e) Ballot paper to contain a column for the voter to inscribe his mark indicating vote. Any further ornamentation of the ballot paper by incorporation of a symbol or colour for the contesting candidate is not one contemplated either by the Act or the Rules and is wholly impermissible in law. 5. The word ‘uniform’ incorporated in Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules by S.R.O.1005/2010 dated 2.11.2010 mandates that all ballot papers shall be similar with regard to the projection of the names. The uniformity should be not only with respect to the ballot papers supplied to the members who desire to vote but also with respect to the names of contesting candidates therein. Giving different colour shades to the contesting candidates or to a particular panel of contesting candidates is an anathema to the scheme of the election process contemplated. This is particularly so since there is no authority either under the Act or the Rules to allot a particular colour to a candidate depending on the political party to whom he owes allegiance. Ext.P6 circular of the Registrar and Ext.P7 circular of the State Co-operative Election Commission only echo the prescriptions in Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules and are perfectly in order. Ext.P6 circular of the Registrar and Ext.P7 circular of the State Co-operative Election Commission only echo the prescriptions in Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules and are perfectly in order. Needless to say that the State Co-operative Election Commission has the power of superintendence for the conduct of election to a co-operative society under S.28B of the Act. 6. We notice that a similar circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was frowned upon in Mahalingam R. v. State Co-operative Election Commission and others ( 2010 (1) KLT 46 ). But the same was prior to the insertion of the word ‘uniform’ in Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules where under the society could print the names of the candidates in a dissimilar manner. It was pointed out that the amendment to Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) was necessitated owing to complaints received alleging that colour change was based on caste, religion and political party. The word ‘uniform’ means ‘characterised by lack of variation’ and it was inserted in Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules with the sole object of treating all the candidates alike in the ballot paper. 7. The learned single Judge has opined that a good number of voters are illiterates and that allotting a separate colour to a candidate owing allegiance to a political party would help the voter in his choice. We fail to see as to how the members of the society in question at Palakkad could be illiterates unable to read even Malayalam in order to decipher the name of the candidate. Moreover Rule 35A(6)(n)(ix) of the Rules takes care of the contingency by enabling a companion to exercise the right of franchise as instructed by the voter subject to statutory prescriptions. The same includes the Presiding Officer (the Polling Officer or the Returning Officer) obtaining a declaration from the companion in Form No.38 given in Appendix II of the Rules. Therefore the possibility of an illiterate voter indicating his choice for a wrong candidate due to the absence of colour shade in projecting his name in the ballot paper is quite illusory. 8. We set aside the impugned judgment which holds that Rule 35A(6)(n)(viii) of the Rules is ‘undemocratic and unconstitutional’ and restore Exts.P6 and P7 circulars issued in accordance therewith. The Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.