IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10664 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SECRETARY(SPECIAL GRADE),KADAMBANADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KADAMBANADU SOUTH.PO, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARA WARRIOR VEEDU, MANNADI KALAYIL,KADAMBANADU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.10664 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Secretary of Kadambanadu Grama Panchayat. The 2nd respondent herein was declared to have been disqualified from the membership of the Panchayat under Section 36 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The 2nd respondent filed a petition before the State Election Commission as provided under Section 36 itself challenging the disqualification. In that case, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to invoke the remedy by way of approaching the State Election Commission, since as per Section 36, the 2nd respondent does not have a right to file a petition before the State Election Commission against the order of disqualification. According to the petitioner, once he is disqualified, he ceases to be a member and only a member of Panchayat is entitled to invoke the remedy before the State Election Commission. It is also submitted that he is also not a voter of the Panchayat and therefore, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction to the State Election Commission, even as a voter of the Panchayat, although for the same also there is provision in S.36. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. I am not inclined to countenance the contention of the petitioner in so far as a Division Bench of this Court has in Rajan v. 2 Kerala State Election Commission [1999 (3) KLT 601] has categorically held that “Section 36 of the Act gives right not only to a member disqualified but also to other members of the Panchayat and even to a voter in the Panchayat”. In fact, in that writ petition, the question which arose was as to whether such a disqualified member could simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission and also file an application under Section 37 for restoration of the membership. The Division Bench held that both remedies could not have been invoked simultaneously in view of the doctrine of election. As such, the issue raised by the petitioner is squarely covered by that decision. 4. Even apart from the same, I am of opinion that the State Election Commission should not adjudicate petitions before it peace- meal. The question of jurisdiction also can be decided finally after taking evidence instead of deciding the preliminary question first, which would only postpone the final decision. This is especially so, since in the very nature of the proceedings before the State Election Commission the same have to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge