IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10223 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OP(EP).24/2005 of MUNSIFF'S COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ D.SATHYAN, AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.DAMODHARAN, KARIKKUZHI VEETIL, PEDIKULAM,PLAVODE WARD, PULIMATH GRAMA PANCHAYATH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. VAMADEVAN.K,PEDIKULAM VILAYIL VEEDU, PLAVODE WARD, PULIMATH PANCHAYATH. 2. J.ASOK KUMAR,JANARDHANA BHAVAN, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATH PANCHAYAT. 3. JITHENDRAN RAVEENDRAN,VEENUS COTTAGE, PULIMATH VILLAGE,PULIMATH PANCHAYATH. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR, MR.P.B.KRISHNAN, MR.P.M.NEELAKANDAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.10223 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs. i) Direct the Munsiff Court, Attingal to dispose of O.P (EP) 24/2005 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court. and ii) Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court deem fir and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner has filed an election petition as O.P 24/2005 before the Munsiff Court, Attingal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent, the elected candidate whose W.P.(C).No.10223 OF 2009 2 selection was sought to be set aside in the petition is pursuing dilatory tactics to prolong the litigation till his term as a member of the panchayat is over. Notice was ordered on the petition and it was served on second and third respondents. As no report on the notice issued to the first respondent by registered post was received by this court even after expiry of a month the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of the petition on the counsel appearing for the first respondent. It has been reported that notice attempted to be served was refused by the counsel for the first respondent. Petitioner has filed an affidavit as to the attempt made to serve the petition as directed and its refusal by the counsel for the first respondent. I find no reason to disbelieve the assertion made by the petitioner as sworn to in his affidavit. Further more it is reasonable to hold that service of the notice issued earlier had been duly effected on the first respondent. So it is declared that due service has W.P.(C).No.10223 OF 2009 3 been made on the first respondent as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 51(2) of Kerala High Court Rules. None of the respondents has turned up before this court. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the materials tendered with the writ petition, I find appropriate directions have to be issued to the court below for an expeditious disposal of the election petition. The learned Munsiff shall give the election petition top priority in hearing and every endeavour shall be made to dispose that petition within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. He shall also report compliance of the direction after the time limit fixed is over. Send a copy of the judgment to the learned Munsiff forthwith and hand over a W.P.(C).No.10223 OF 2009 4 copy to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE vdv