IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 26013 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2116/2008 IN OP(ELE).24/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VAMDADEVAN, S/O.KESAVAN, VILAYIL VEEDU, PEDIKULAM, PULINATH PO, THIRUVANATHAPURAM DIOST. BY ADV. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SRI.REENA C.STEPHENSON SRI.RAMITHA M.A. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SATHYAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, KARIKUZHY VEEDU, PEDIKULAM,PULINATH PO, PLAVODA WARD, PULINATH PANCHAYAT-15. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.26013 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate direction or order calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quashing the same; ii. to stay all further proceedings in O.P.(Election) No.24/2005 till the disposal of the writ petition. 2. Petitioner is the returned candidate, whose election was challenged by the respondent in an election petition, which is now pending for consideration before the learned Munsiff, Attingal. Previously, it is submitted that two writ petitions had filed before this Court, and those petitions were disposed with some directions. A time limit has been fixed to WPC.26013/09 2 the court for completing the trial and dispose the election petition. It appears that the ground canvassed to impeach the election of the petitioner was that double voting had been cast in his favour by some voters. To examine the correctness of that case, ballot papers with reference to such voters had been directed to be produced for scrutiny. The ballot boxes were not produced but ballot papers were separately produced, and as such, reliance is not possible on such ballots, is the ground canvased by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge so raised was negatived by the learned Munsiff vide Ext.P3 order. Perusing Ext.P3 order, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below. If at all the petitioner has any challenge with respect to the production of the ballot papers and its scrutiny, it is open to him to challenge its correctness in case final orders adverse to him is rendered in the election petition preferring an appeal against such decision. Reserving his right to do so, the writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp WPC.26013/09 3