W.P.(C).No.9835/22: PRADEEP PU AGED 47 YEARS PK UNNI @ UNNI VYDHYAN & JAYAPRAKASHAN AGED 48 YEARS v STATE OF KERALA, KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, NANNAMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYATH & PRAVEEN O.P.

W.P.(C).No.9835/22 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 9835 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 PRADEEP PU AGED 47 YEARS PK UNNI @ UNNI VYDHYAN, PAZHANJIYIL HOUSE, PIDAVANNUR AMOSM, MOOKUTHALA POST, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN - 679574 2 JAYAPRAKASHAN AGED 48 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, PERISSERY PARAMBIL MOOKKUTHALA, NANNAMUKKU, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN - 679574 BY ADVS. K.M.FIROZ E.C.AHAMED FAZIL M.SHAJNA NIYAS MOHAMMED P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001 2 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION VIKAS BHAVAN, JANAHITHAM, NEAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , PIN - 695033 W.P.(C).No.9835/22 2 3 NANNAMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANNAMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, NANNAMUKKU, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , PIN - 679575 4 PRAVEEN O.P. AGED 30 YEARS S/O. CHANDRAN, OZHUKKAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, PIDAVANNUR AMSOM, MOOKUTHALA POST, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT , PIN - 670505 BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN, SC, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.03.2022, THE COURT ON 07.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.9835/22 3 ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **W.P.(C).No.9835 of 2022 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7[th] day of April, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## 1. The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:- “i To issue a writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate writ, direction or order requiring the fourth respondent to show under what authority he had been holding the office of Vice-President and Chairman of Standing Committee of Finance of Nannamukku Grama Panchayath after passing of Exhibit P1 dated 14-1-2022 and to restrain the fourth respondent from continuing in that office. ii. To declare that fourth respondent has no authority and not entitled to hold the post of and continue as Vice-President and Chairman of Standing Committee of Finance of Nannamukku Grama Panchayath after passing of Exhibit P1 dated 14-1-2022. iii. To direct the fourth respondent to refrain from holding the office of Vice-President and Chairman of Standing Committee of Finance of Nannamukku Grama Panchayath by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission and the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C).No.9835/22 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election of the 4[th] respondent as member of the 3[rd] respondent Panchayat stands set aside by Exhibit P1 judgment of the MunsiffMagistrate Court, Ponnani dated 14.1.2022. It is contended that by operation of Section 107 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the effect of the declaration of the election of the 4[th] respondent to be void is to take effect as soon as it is pronounced by the court and that therefore the 4[th] respondent has no manner of right or authority to continue to be the Vice President of the Panchayat and the Chairman of the Standing Committee for Finance. It is submitted that in A.S.No.5/2022, the Additional District Court, Manjeri has only permitted the 4[th] respondent to discharge functions as a Member of the Panchayat with a condition that he will not have any voting right and that he shall not collect any remuneration for the sitting of the Panchayat meetings or any of its Committees till the disposal of the I.A. on merits. It is contended that the interim order of stay was challenged before this Court in O.P.(C).No.182 of 2022 by the 4[th] respondent, but the same was dismissed. However, it is contended that in the light of the clear provisions of Sections 107 and 153 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the 4[th] respondent would have no power W.P.(C).No.9835/22 5 whatsoever to continue as Vice President or as Chairman of a Standing Committee and that therefore the writ of quo warranto is liable to be issued. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of this Court in **Muraleedharan V.V. v.P.G.Shaji** [2012 (2) KHC 209], **Padmakumar v. Unnikrishnan** [ 2004 (1) KLT 1097], judgemnt dated 1.1.2008 in W.P.(C).No.38192/2007, judgment dated 24.10.2013 in OP(C)No.3338/2013. 5. _Per contra_ , the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission would contend that Exhibit P2 order has already been unsuccessfully challenged by the 4[th] respondent before this Court in O.P(C).No.182/2022. The 1[st] petitioner in this writ petition was the respondent in the said O.P as well. It is submitted that since Exhibit P2 order has already been rendered by the appellate court and since the appeal is pending consideration before the said court, it would be for the petitioner to approach the appellate court and get a clarification with regard to the interdiction, if any, as against the 4[th] respondent continuing in office as Vice-President and a writ W.P.(C).No.9835/22 6 petition for the said purpose is not maintainable. Referring to the interim orders rendered in the writ petitions filed before this Court against orders of the Kerala State Election Commission, it is contended that where this Court interdicts the concerned member from holding the post of President, Vice-President or Chairman of Standing Committees of the Panchyat, the interim orders specifically direct so and in the absence of the same, such interdiction cannot be inferred from Exhibit P2 order. It is submitted that the petitioner has the efficacious alternate remedy of approaching the appellate court for a clarification of Exhibit P2 order or for a further interdiction to be issued by the very same court. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced and having gone through the provisions of Section 107, 113 and 114, 153(12) and the decisions of this Court relied on, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy of approaching the appellate court for a clarification or a further interdiction and that this writ petition does not require to be considered by this Court. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner 7 W.P.(C).No.9835/22 and reserving liberty to urge the same before the appellate court. sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.9835/22 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9835/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.01.2022 IN OP(ELECTION) NO. 3 OF 2021 PASSSED BY MUNSIFF/MAGISTRATE COURT, PONNANI Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.01.2022 IN I.A. NO. 1 OF 2022 IN A.S. NO. 5 OF 2022 PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-II, MANJERI Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2022 IN O.P.(C) NO. 182 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE HONURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF NANNAMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYTH HELD ON 24.02.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF FINANCE OF NANNAMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 05.02.2022 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTER OF AWARENESS PROGRAM HELD ON 17.02.2022 OF PERUMPADAPPU BLOCK PANCHAYATH ANNUAL PROJECT 2021-2022 (OF NANNMUKKU GRAMA PANCHAYATH) True copy PS to Judge