IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18029 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- THE PRESIDENT THRIKKOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KALLOOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SRI. P.R. PADMANABHAN MEMBER. WARD NO.9 THRIKKOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH KALLOOR P.O., THRISSUR. 4. THE SECRETARY THRIKKOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH KALLOOR P.O., THRISSUR. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18029 OF 2008 U ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent overruling the objection raised by the Petitioner against the maintainability of an application filed by the 3rd respondent and holding that the petition is maintainable. By this order, the 2nd respondent also granted interim relief to the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that what is prayed for in Ext.P2, the petition before the Election Commission was to set aside the decision of the Panchayat and that the said power is conferred only on the Government and not on the State Election Commission. 2. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the Election Commission contends that it is an issue which falls exclusively within the domain of the Election Commission and relied on the decisions of this court in Gopi v. Maneed Grama Panchayat (2002(2) KLT 753) and Anil Kumar v. Kerala State Election Commission (2007(2) KLT 303). 3. On going through Ext.P4 order passed by the State Election Commission, I feel the findings of the Election Commissioner is on the WPC 18029/08 :2 : maintainability of the complaint with prima facie conclusions and not on the merits of the case canvassed by either of the parties. In view of this, there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P4 and as the conclusions, are all subject to the final decision to be taken by the Election Commission in OP 59/08 filed by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, I need only clarify that the Election Commission shall adjudicate the OP 59/08 filed by the 3rd respondent untramelled by the conclusions arrived at in Ext.P4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after issuing Ext.P2, the case is now straight away posted for trial and he did not have sufficient opportunity to file counter, produce records, list of witnesses etc. Since the proceedings before the Election Commission are in the nature of a civil suit, the parties thereto are entitled to file their pleadings, produce their documents and evidence. If the petitioner did not have sufficient time to complete the pleadings and produce the documents, he may make an appropriate application to the Election Commission, in which case the Election Commissioner shall take note of the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp