IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2011 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 38739 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THEYYOTTUCHIRA NISHATH,W/O.SAIDALAVI, AGED 29 YEARS,THEYYOTTUCHIRA HOUSE, PO ARAKKUPARAMBA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY CHIEF SECRERTARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MS.C.K.SHERIN FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38739 of 2010(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ORDINANCE DTD. 14.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P2: GOVERNMENT ORDER DTD. 23.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P3: AFFIDAVIT DTD. 1.10.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P4: CERTIFICATE DTD. 6.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE HEAD MISTRESS OF THE G.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PUTHOOR. EXT.P5: CERTIFICATE DTD. 6.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE P.T.A, G.M.L.P.SCHOOL, PUTHOOR. EXT.P6: CERTIFIFCATE DTD. 6.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. EXT.P7: CERTIFICATE DTD. 6.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA. EXT.P8: ORDER DTD. 7.1.2010 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P9: JUDGMENT DTD. 8.10.2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.31051/2010. EXT.P10: JUDGMENT DTD. 21.10.2010 IN W.A.NO.1818/2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL .... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.38739 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 notification and to declare that the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Second Amendment), 2010 and amendment to Section 30(1) explanation (2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) is violative of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional and for other incidental reliefs. 2. This Court considered similar writ petitions namely, W.P. (C).No.31025/2010 and connected cases and disposed of the cases by judgment dated 8.10.2010. The learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission, on instructions submitted that the ordinance has been lapsed on 13.7.2011 and therefore, requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. In view of the fact that ordinance has been lapsed, no question survives for consideration in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. It is made clear that the contentions raised in the writ petition are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-