IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5854 of 2009(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PAUL JOSEPH , AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. E.V.JOSEPH,MEMBER FROM WARD NO.13 CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,RESIDING AT EMBLASSERIL HOUSE, VALAM, S.CHITTOOR PO COCHIN 27. BY ADV. MR.P.K.IBRAHIM MR.D.B.BINU MR.THOMSTINE K.AUGUSTINE MR.C.N.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHERANALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SOUTH CHITTOOR PO, CHERANALLUR COCHIN 27 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SMT. MARIYA GORETHY, CHRUPILLY HOUSE VALAM S.CHITTOOR PO 682 027 NOW WORKING AS SECRETARY, COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA VALAM BRANCH COMMITTEE , PKV SMARAKA MANDIRAM CHERANALLOOR PO, COCHIN 34, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5854 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the respondent in Petition No.164/2008 before the State Election Commission, under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein the petitioner is sought to be disqualified for not convening the Grama Sabha meeting, for which the petitioner is the Convenor. The contention raised is that Ext.P3, which is the petition filed by the 3rd respondent before the State Election Commission itself is not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the petition has been filed based on the Malayalam version of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Third amendment) Act 2005, which is not in tune with the English version. The contention of the petitioner is that going by the English version, the petitioner cannot be disqualified, since the petitioner has not done anything, which would attract disqualification. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(c)No.5854/09 2 “i) declare that the Grama Sabha meeting of Ward No.13 of Cheranalloor Grama Panchayath convened by the Petitioner on 21.12.05, 4.2.06, 29.8.06, 9.3.07 and 8.7.07 are in accordance with the Section 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (third amendment) Act 2005 (31 of 2005) as published in the gazettee of the Kerala on 24.8.05 and is therefore not liable to be proceeded for disqualification under Section 35(1) and 36(2) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act for failing to convene twice consecutively the meeting of Gram Sabha due in three months. ii) declare that Ext.P3 petition is not maintainable as it is hit by Section 250 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act; iii) call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ; iv) issue an interim direction staying all further proceedings on Ext.P3 petition on the files of the 1 st Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition”. 2. On a query from the Court as to why this Court should entertain a writ petition against petition pending before the State Election Commission wherein the State Election Commission is yet to pass any orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the State Election Commission has already taken decision in other identical cases relying on the Malayalam version of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Third amendment) Act and therefore, the decision of the W.P.(c)No.5854/09 3 Commission in Ext.P3 petition is a foregone conclusion. He submits that against those decisions writ petitions filed by the aggrieved persons are pending before this Court. Therefore, this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before any irreparable injury is caused to the petitioner on account of an adverse decision by the State Election Commission in Ext.P3 petition. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission. When it was put to the counsel as to whether it is true that the Commission has taken an adverse decision as against similarly placed persons, the learned counsel for the Commission would submit that since the petitioner has now pointed out the decisions for the proposition that when there is difference between the Malayalam and English versions of an enactment, the English version would prevail, which are Thanga Dorai V. Chancellor, Kerala University [1995 (2) KLT 663], Thomas V. David [1999(1)KLT 208] and Murali Purushothaman V. State of Kerala [2002(1) KLT 698], the Election Tribunal would now consider the applicability of those decisions also and come to an independent decision, W.P.(c)No.5854/09 4 after considering all the contentions of the petitioner, which has been raised in Ext.P4 objection filed by the petitioner. Therefore, I am of opinion that despite pendency of the earlier writ petitions, in view of the fact that the Election Commission is bound to consider the decisions of this Court which are directly on point, the Election Commission would consider all those contentions afresh, after hearing the petitioner notwithstanding that earlier a different view taken by the Commission in other cases. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.5854/09 5