JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The appellant, who is a candidate in the election scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023 at MGM LP School, Thiruvalla, to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society - Thiruvalla Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. filed W.P. (C) No. 36914 of 2023, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 4 to 6, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla and the Circle Inspector of Police, Thiruvalla Police Station, to afford sufficient police protection to the voters, polling booths and its premises during the day of polling, to elect the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society, scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023 at Thiruvalla M.G.M.L.P. School and to continue the same till the declaration of the results, without the same being obstructed or prevented by any other persons; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3, namely, the State Co-operative Election Commission, the Electoral Officer and the Returning Officer, to make arrangements to conduct the election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society, scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023 at Thiruvalla M.G.M.L.P. School and to continue the same in a fair manner and to ensure that election is conducted in accordance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules made thereunder; a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make arrangements to install CCTV cameras at the entrance of the polling station and to videograph the entire polling process on 12.11.2023, till the declaration of results, in the premises where the election is conducted, including the entry point of the venue and also at the polling station; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent-Returning Officer and the 7th respondent-District Collector, Pathanamthitta, to ensure verification of identity cards especially the Aadhar card using the devices available to verify the genuineness of the said card so also the Form-6A card produced with reference to Form-6B register maintained by the 8th respondent Society scrupulously, without any dilution, before allowing the person to cast his/her vote in the polling scheduled on 12.11.2023; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Returning Officer and also the Polling officers to verify the identity cards before allowing a person to cast his/her vote, as mandated under law; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Returning Officer and the 7th respondent District Collector to conduct election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society in a free and fair manner, allowing only the members having identity cards issued by the Society in Form-6A to cast their vote; and an order of this Court appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee/observe the election to the Board of Directors of the 8th respondent Society, scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, and to give a report to this Court regarding the steps taken. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society is conducted on political lines between the supporters of the United Democratic Front (UDF) and CPI(M). There are 26 candidates supported by UDF and CPI(M), contesting for the 13-member Managing Committee. In the writ petition, it is alleged that, due to the inability to win the election to the Managing Committee of the Society through a democratic path, the CPI(M) members will resort to violence and disrupt the election, in order to pave the way for a Managing Committee consisting of the members from the party in power and/or they will try to win the election through illegal means. The 2nd respondent Electoral Officer and the 3rd respondent Returning Officer are acting arbitrarily and favouring the candidates of the ruling party. Any sort of violence would affect the smooth conduct of the democratic process. In such circumstances, the writ petitioner approached respondents 5 to 6, for effective police protection, by submitting Exts.P4, P6 and P8 representations. But even after being aware of the situation, no efforts have been taken by the police. In order to avoid bogus voting and impersonation, the writ petitioner approached respondents 2 and 3, by submitting Ext.P10 representation, to make arrangements for videography of the entire polling and to install CCTV cameras at the entrance of the polling station and to verify Form-6A identity cards with Form-6B register maintained in the 8th respondent Society, to cast vote. However, no action has been taken by respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, for a fair election, it is highly necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the election process and to ensure that the election is conducted in accordance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. 3. By the impugned judgment dated 08.11.2023, the learned Single Judge disposed of W.P. (C) No. 36914 of 2023, whereby respondents 4 to 6 are directed to deploy sufficient police force and to afford adequate police protection to the voters, polling booths, and its premises during the day of polling scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, at MGM LP School, Thiruvalla, for electing members to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society, till the declaration of results. It was also ordered that the 3rd respondent Returning Officer shall make arrangements to install CCTV cameras at the entrance of the polling station and take videography of the entire polling process, till the declaration of the results, in the premises, without hindering the secrecy of the polling, at the expense of the writ petitioner. In the event of any dispute as to the identity of any voter, the 3rd respondent Returning Officer and the Polling Officers shall verify the genuineness of the identity card issued in Form-6A, with Form-6B register maintained in the 8th respondent Society, to prove the identity. 4. In this writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 the grievances of the appellant are that the learned Single Judge declined the prayers in the writ petition for verification of the identity of all voters, on the date of polling, with reference to Form-6B register maintained by the 8th respondent Society, and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to observe/oversee the entire election process to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society. 5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/ petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for State Co-operative Election Commission for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Special Government Pleader for respondents 4 to 7. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner would contend that when the writ petition contained specific allegations that the CPI(M) members will resort to violence and disrupt the election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society, scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, due to their inability to win the election through a democratic path, the learned Single Judge ought to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner to observe/oversee the entire election process. Since the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer and the 3rd respondent Returning Officer are acting arbitrarily and favouring the candidates of the ruling party, the learned Single Judge ought to have ordered verification of the identity of all voters, on the date of polling, with reference to Form-6B register maintained by the 8th respondent Society. Since the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer and the 3rd respondent Returning Officer are acting arbitrarily and favouring the candidates of the ruling party, the learned Single Judge ought to have ordered verification of the identity of all voters, on the date of polling, with reference to Form-6B register maintained by the 8th respondent Society. In support of the said contentions, the learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on Ext.P2 report submitted by the Observer appointed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 26205 of 2021 in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ext.P3 report submitted by the Observer in W.P. (C) No. 23453 of 2023 in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of Enathu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ext.P9 interim order dated 16.06.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 92 of 2022 and connected matters, in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of Thodupuzha Primary Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd. 7. Rule 148 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971, deals with the addition of parties. As per Rule 148, all persons directly affected shall be made parties to the petition. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the Court on application made of the purpose be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the original petition shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct. 8. 8. When the allegations contained in the writ petition, which is the foundation upon which the writ petition has been built, for seeking interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the election process scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, by granting police protection and appointment of an Advocate Observer to observe/oversee the entire election process, are that CPI(M) members will resort to violence and disrupt the election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society, due to their inability to win the election through a democratic path, and the 2nd respondent Electoral Officer and the 3rd respondent Returning Officer are acting arbitrarily and favouring the candidates of the ruling party, the said candidates, who are persons directly affected by the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, are necessary parties to the writ petition. Therefore, the appellant/writ petitioner ought not to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of Inda, seeking police protection and other reliefs in connection with the election scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, without the said candidates in the party array. 9. Moreover, in Gladstone George Varghese vs. District Police Chief, Kollam and Others, 2023 (7) KHC 30 a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, held that in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not entitled to an order for police protection as a matter of right. Similarly, in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot grant an order for police protection as a matter of course. In order to seek police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has to first approach the concerned Station House Officer with a proper complaint against those who are causing a threat to his life/property and/or a ‘law and order’ issue in the locality. In order to seek police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has to first approach the concerned Station House Officer with a proper complaint against those who are causing a threat to his life/property and/or a ‘law and order’ issue in the locality. Since a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a failure on the part of that officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation, in the complaint filed before the concerned Station House Officer, which is the foundation upon which a writ petition seeking police protection has been built, the writ petitioner has to disclose his legal right to compel performance of a statutory duty cast upon that officer. The said complaint should contain necessary pleadings. In case there is any failure on the part of the officer concerned in discharging the statutory duty or obligation, he can approach this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with proper parties in the party array. A writ petition for police protection should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the High Court is required to grant an order for police protection as a matter of course. 10. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge referred to a decision of this Court in Malanadu Service Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Station House Officer, Vagamon, 2023 (6) KHC 459, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, in the context of the relief sought for in the writ petition for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to observe/oversee the entire election process. 11. In Malanadu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, 2023 (6) KHC 459 one of the contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the State Co-operative Election Commission was that in the writ petition, the petitioner Society failed to make out a case for the appointment of an Advocate Observer to oversee the process of election and therefore, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in declining the relief sought for the appointment of an Advocate Observer. The learned Standing Counsel has also pointed out that despite the Co-operative Election Commission taking necessary steps to ensure proper conduct of election to the Managing Committee of Co-operative Societies, many writ petitions are being filed before this Court seeking police protection, videography of the election process and appointment of an Advocate Observer to oversee the process of election. In that context, the Division Bench noticed that, in the writ petition, the Society has not made out a case for the appointment of an Advocate Observer to oversee the process of the election scheduled to be held on 15.10.2023. The only averment in paragraph 3 of the writ petition was that, if an observer is appointed, he can oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting and if any untoward incident happens the same can be reported to this Court. Paragraphs 6 to 13 of that decision read thus: “6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent State Co-operative Election Commission would point out that, despite the Election Commission taking necessary steps to ensure proper conduct of election to the Managing Committee of Co-operative Societies, many writ petitions are being filed before this Court seeking police protection, videography of election process and appointment of an Advocate Observer to oversee the process of election. In the writ petition, the Society failed to make out a case for the appointment of an Advocate Observer to oversee the process of election. Therefore, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with, in declining the relief sought for the appointment of an Advocate Observer. 7. In Bharat Singh vs. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534 the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. Further, there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. Further, there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 8. In M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387 the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land for M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that in the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied with and there being no particulars in respect of non-compliance of Rule 4, it is difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3 and 4 had not been complied with in the face of the record of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was “not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with Rules 3 and 4.” The Apex Court held that it is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied with. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e. particulars as to why it is alleged that there is non-compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particulars. No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is lacking. Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the court. No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is lacking. Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the court. On the facts of the case, the Apex Court found that the State has more than justified its stand that there has been compliance not only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well, though there was no challenge to Rule 3 and the averments regarding non-compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever. High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings. 9. In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 7 SCC 639 a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned about the questions in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision in a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. 10. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice. 10. In the instant case, the averments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of facts, in support of the reliefs sought for in W.P. (C) No. 30797 of 2023, read thus: “2. In the event of any untoward incident happens the election will have to be stopped thereby the society will incur huge loss. In order to conduct smooth polling and counting, requesting for police protection, representation was submitted to the 1st respondent by the petitioner on 08.09.2023. A true photocopy of the said representation dated 08.09.2023 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit P2. The State Police Chief has issued circular No. 28/2013 dated 20.11.2013 directing to provide adequate and effective Police protection for the smooth conduct of the election to the subordinate officers in the Police Department. A true photocopy of the said circular is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3. Petitioner apprehends that in spite of Exts.P2 and P3 no effective police protection will be afforded for the smooth conduct of the polling and counting scheduled on 15.10.2023 due to political reasons. The 1st respondent has accepted Ext.P2 on 09.09.2023. 3. In order to prevent bogus voting comparison of identity cards with 6B identity card register is absolutely necessary. If videography is permitted the same can prevent the entry of unauthorised persons to the polling station. If an observer is appointed, he can oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting and if any untoward incident happens the same can be reported to this Hon’ble Court.” 11. Ext.P2 is a copy of the representation dated 08.09.2023 made by the Secretary of the Society before the 1st respondent Station House Officer, seeking police protection. The said representation reads thus: 12. For the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and for the conduct of elections to the Co-operative Societies, the State Co-operative Election Commission has been constituted under Section 28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The said representation reads thus: 12. For the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and for the conduct of elections to the Co-operative Societies, the State Co-operative Election Commission has been constituted under Section 28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Ext.P1 is a copy of the election notification dated 01.09.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent Election Commission, whereby the 3rd respondent has been appointed as the Returning Officer for the polling and counting to elect the Managing Committee of the Society scheduled to be held on 15.10.2023, from 9.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m., at Government High School, Vagamon. 13. In the writ petition, the appellant Society has not made out a case for the appointment of an Advocate Observer to oversee the process of the election scheduled to be held on 15.10.2023. The only averment in paragraph 3 of the writ petition is that, if an observer is appointed, he can oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting and if any untoward incident happens the same can be reported to this Court.” 12. In the instant case, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the averments made in the writ petition, in support of the relief sought for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee/observe the process of the election scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, are contained in paragraphs 15 and 19 of the statement of facts and Ground G of the writ petition, which read thus: “15. Taking into account the abovementioned circumstances, it is evident that no effective steps will be taken by the respondents in ensuring a free and fair election which is the basis of the democratic process. It is further evident that, without appointing Advocate Commissioners it will be a free game for those who are deliberately trying to disrupt the election which would result in helping the obstructers to win the election through illegal means. xxx xxx xxx 19. It is submitted that even after deploying the police officials for police protection, they are supporting the hooligans of the CPI(M) and promoting impersonation and bogus voting. A perusal of Exts.P2 and P3 Advocate Commissioner reports would show that the police officials are nothing but moot spectators and blindly support the illegal acts of the ruling party. The District Collector being the Executive Magistrate is responsible for maintaining law and order. A perusal of Exts.P2 and P3 Advocate Commissioner reports would show that the police officials are nothing but moot spectators and blindly support the illegal acts of the ruling party. The District Collector being the Executive Magistrate is responsible for maintaining law and order. Therefore, keen observation of the 7th respondent is necessary for the smooth conduct of election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Bank and upholding the rule of law. xxx xxx xxx (G) Considering the involvement of the political groups, there are chances of violence and disruption of voters that could erupt during the Election Day. Also, it is reliably learned that the workers of the LDF, along with others are planning to disrupt the election. Therefore, for a fair election, it is highly necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the election process and to ensure that the election is conducted in accordance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.” 13. Relying on Ext.P2 report submitted by the Observer appointed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 26205 of 2021 in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ext.P3 report submitted by the Observer in W.P. (C) No. 23453 of 2023 in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of Enathu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. or Ext.P9 interim order dated 16.06.2022 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 92 of 2022 and connected matters, in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of Thodupuzha Primary Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd., the appellant cannot make out a case for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to oversee/observe the process of the election scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023 to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society. 14. 14. The law laid down by the Division Bench in the decision in Malanadu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, 2023 (6) KHC 459 is that when the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act deal with the procedure for adjudication of any dispute arising in connection with the election of the board of management or any officer of a Co-operative Society, exclusively by the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, and a person who indulges in or adopts any corrupt practices, before, during or after the election, including a person who commits any criminal offence against the Electoral Officer or the Returning Officer or other office bearers and employees of a Society, has to be proceeded against for an offence punishable under Section 94 of the Act with imprisonment which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to one thousand rupees or with both, the High Court, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting in an election of the board of management or any officer of the Society. Paragraphs 14 to 18 of that decision read thus: “14. As per sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, read with clause (c) of sub-section (2), any dispute arising in connection with the election of the board of management or any officer of the Society shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, and the Arbitration Court shall decide such dispute and no other court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. As per the Explanation to clause (c) of sub-section (2), a dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election, shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election. 15. As per the Explanation to clause (c) of sub-section (2), a dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election, shall be deemed to be a dispute arising in connection with the election. 15. As per sub-section (4B) of Section 94, whoever, before, during or after the election of members of the committee or of office bearer or of delegates indulges in or adopts any corrupt practices mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to one thousand rupees or with both. Clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (4B) of Section 94 of the Act read thus: “(a) fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys any nomination paper. (b) fraudulently defaces, destroys or removes any lists, notice or other document affixed by or under the authority of the Co-operative Election Commission or the Electoral Officer or the Returning Officer. (c) fraudulently defaces or fraudulently destroys any ballot paper or the official mark or the ballot box or any identity card for election relating to any society. (d) supplies any forged ballot paper or forged identity card. (e) fraudulently put any other matter other than ballot paper in the ballot box which he is not authorized by law. (f) commits any criminal offence against the Electoral Officer or the Returning Officer or the Polling Personnel or other office bearers and employees of a society. (g) offers any gift or promise with the intention to influence members to vote in favour of him or to any other person. (h) compel any person to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election to any society.” 16. In view of the provisions under clause (f) of sub-section (4B) of Section 94 of the Act, whoever, before, during or after the election of members of the committee or of office bearer or of delegates of a Co-operative Society commits any criminal offence against the Electoral Officer or the Returning Officer or the Polling Personnel or other office bearers and employees of a society, which is a corrupt practice, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to one thousand rupees or with both. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 95, the offences punishable under sub-section (4A), sub-section (4B), sub-section (8), sub-section (8A) and sub-section (8B) of Section 94 shall be cognizable. 17. As already noticed hereinbefore, the only averment in paragraph 3 of the writ petition is that, if an observer is appointed, he can oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting and if any untoward incident happens the same can be reported to this Court. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Act, read with clause (c) of sub-section (2), any dispute arising in connection with the election, i.e. a dispute arising at any stage of an election commencing from the convening of the general body meeting for the election, of the board of management or any officer of the Society shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, and the Arbitration Court shall decide such a dispute and no other court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such a dispute. In view of the provisions under sub-section (4B) of Section 94 of the Act, whoever, before, during or after the election of members of the committee or of office bearer or of delegates indulges in or adopts any corrupt practices mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) is committing a cognizable offence punishable under sub-section (1) of Section 95. 18. In view of the provisions under sub-section (4B) of Section 94 of the Act, whoever, before, during or after the election of members of the committee or of office bearer or of delegates indulges in or adopts any corrupt practices mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) is committing a cognizable offence punishable under sub-section (1) of Section 95. 18. When the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act deal with the procedure for adjudication of any dispute arising in connection with the election of the board of management or any officer of a Co-operative Society, exclusively by the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, and a person who indulges in or adopts any corrupt practices, before, during or after the election, including a person who commits any criminal offence against the Electoral Officer or the Returning Officer or other office bearers and employees of a Society, has to be proceeded against for an offence punishable under Section 94 of the Act with imprisonment which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to one thousand rupees or with both, this Court, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting in an election of the board of management or any officer of the Society. In that view of the matter, we find absolutely no merits in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge went wrong in not appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting scheduled to be held on 15.10.2023.” 15. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Malanadu Service Co-operative Bank Limited, 2023 (6) KHC 459, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee/observe the proceedings of the polling and counting in an election of the board of management or any officer of the Co-operative Society conducted by the State Co-operative Election Commission constituted under Section 28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in declining the relief sought for in the writ petition for appointing an Advocate Commissioner to oversee/observe the process of the election scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023 to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society. 16. Another contention of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge ought to have ordered verification of the identity of all voters, on the date of polling, with reference to Form-6B register maintained by the 8th respondent Society. 17. Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative Rules, 1969 deals with the procedure regarding the conduct of election to the committee of Societies by the State Co-operative Election Commission. Rule 35A(6)(n) deals with arrangements in the polling station. As per clause (ix) of Rule 35A(6)(n), no ballot paper shall be issued to a member unless he produces his identity card and any one of the documents mentioned in the explanation and the polling officer is satisfied that the member concerned is the same person, as noted in the voters' list, furnished to him. When a ballot paper is issued the serial number of the ballot paper will be noted against the name of the member in the voters list. On receipt of such ballot paper, the member shall proceed to the polling compartment set apart for the purpose and indicate the person or persons in whose favour he exercises his vote by inscribing a mark (x) against the name of the candidate or candidates, as the case may be, put the ballot paper in the ballot box, kept for the purpose with utmost secrecy. If owing to blindness or other physical infirmity or illiteracy, a member is unable to inscribe the mark on the ballot paper, the polling officer or the Returning Officer shall allow the companion of the voter to exercise his vote as instructed by the voter. Before allowing the companion to vote on behalf of the voter the presiding officer should get a declaration from the companion in Form No. 38 (Appendix II). The Explanation to clause (ix) of Rule 35A(6)(n) read thus: “Explanation: (i) Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India. (ii) Unique Identification Card Aadhar Card. (iii) Ration Card. (iv) Driving Licence. (v) Identity Card issued by the Employer. (vi) PAN Card. (vii) Any other identity card notified by the State Co-operative Election Commission.” 18. The Explanation to clause (ix) of Rule 35A(6)(n) read thus: “Explanation: (i) Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India. (ii) Unique Identification Card Aadhar Card. (iii) Ration Card. (iv) Driving Licence. (v) Identity Card issued by the Employer. (vi) PAN Card. (vii) Any other identity card notified by the State Co-operative Election Commission.” 18. In view of the provisions under clause (ix) of Rule 35A(6)(n) of the Kerala Co-operative Rules, no ballot paper shall be issued to a member unless he produces his identity card and any one of the documents mentioned in the explanation and the polling officer is satisfied that the member concerned is the same person, as noted in the voters' list, furnished to him. In view of the provisions under clause (vi) of Rule 35A(6)(n), canvassing of votes by any person at the place where elections are to be conducted shall be prohibited. Therefore, on 12.11.2023, the entry of persons to the compound of MGM LP School, where polling and counting in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society is scheduled to be held, shall be confined to those who carry their identity card issued by the Society in Form-6A and any one of the documents mentioned in the explanation to clause (ix) of Rule 35A(6)(n) of the Kerala Co-operative Rules. In the polling booths, the Polling Officer shall verify the identity of the voters, with reference to Form-6B register maintained by the 8th respondent Society, only in cases in which the identity of the voter or the validity of the identity card, etc. is disputed by a representative of the candidate contesting in the election. In that view of the matter, we find no merits in the contention of the appellant that, on the date of polling, the Polling Officers have to verify the identity of all voters with reference to Form-6B register maintained by the 8th respondent Society. 19. From the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the 8th respondent Society has approximately 11,000 members. There are 26 candidates contesting in the election scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, for 13 seats in the Managing Committee. There are 8 polling booths. 19. From the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the 8th respondent Society has approximately 11,000 members. There are 26 candidates contesting in the election scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023, for 13 seats in the Managing Committee. There are 8 polling booths. The learned Special Government Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court a detailed ‘Police Bandobast Scheme’ drawn by the 5th respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla, which provides for the deployment of around 200 police personnel at the time of polling, which is scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023 from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. followed by the counting of votes. On a query made by this Court, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the compound of MGM LP School has a compound wall on all sides. 20. On 12.11.2023, the entry of persons to the compound of MGM LP School, where polling and counting in connection with the election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society is scheduled to be held, shall be confined to those who carry their identity card issued by the Society in Form-6A and any one of the documents mentioned in the explanation to clause (ix) of Rule 35A(6)(n) of the Kerala Co-operative Rules. Each polling booth shall have a facility for videography, with a video camera on a tripod, without compromising the secrecy of the election process, in which the entire process of verification of the identity of the voters shall be recorded. Respondents 1 to 6 shall ensure strict compliance of the above directions. As provided in the ‘Police Bandobast Scheme’ the maintenance of law and order during the polling and counting shall be under the direct supervision of the 5th respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla. 21. In addition to the directions contained in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the directions contained hereinbefore shall also be complied with by respondents 1 to 6 in the election to the Managing Committee of the 8th respondent Society, scheduled to be held on 12.11.2023. With the above directions, the writ appeal is disposed of.