IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34986 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PRASANNAKUMAR, PRASANTHI, NADUVATHUCHERI, CHAVARA SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SASI R., PLAMAZHATHU VEEDU, NADUVATHUCHERI, CHAVARA SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THEKKUM BHAGAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHOWARA SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM. 3. SRI.VENUGOPAL, THE RETURNING OFFICER, THEKKUM BHAGAM GRAMAM PANCHAYAT, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM. 4. SHRI.K.P.MOHANDAS, PRESIDENT OF THEKKUM BHAGAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND MEMBER OF WARD NO.10 CHOWARA SOUTH P.O., KOLLAM. R1 BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE R3 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RANJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.34986 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners are two voters in Ward No.10 of Thekkum Bhagam Grama Panchayat. The 4th respondent was elected as the president of that panchayat. He tendered Ext.R2(a) as resignation. That was challenged by another voter before the Election Commission. The 4th respondent president appeared in that proceedings and stated that he never wanted to resign his membership from the panchayat and that the resignation letter is not in conformity with the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules and hence it cannot be accepted as a legal one. The Commissioner issued Ext.P1 order holding that the 4th respondent herein had not then resigned. Thereafter, the 4th respondent again made Ext.R2(b) resignation on 4.8.2009. The petitioners herein challenged the acceptance of that resignation. When matters were listed before the Election Commission, one among the petitioners was absent and his WPC.34986/09 2 petition was accordingly dismissed. Going by the Commission's report, petitions of both the writ petitioners were dismissed. 2.By-election to the casual vacancy of the president is scheduled to be held tomorrow. The question is whether this Court should interfere at the instance of the writ petitioners who had filed the petitions before the Election Commission. 3.Notices were issued through special messenger. I have verified the original process served through the officer of this Court. It is received by the 4th respondent on 7.12.2009. The signature acknowledging that receipt is not different from the signature that occurs on Ext.R2(b), on comparison with naked eye. I record this fact because the Commission states in its report that in spite of two postings before it, after service of notice, the 4th respondent whose resignation was under challenge had not appeared before it. It is noteworthy in this context that he had appeared in the earlier rounds (Ext.P1 WPC.34986/09 3 proceedings) and had denounced his resignation later. Common course of human conduct necessarily would have persuaded the 4th respondent to appear before the Commission and take a definite stand before it, more particularly, if he denies or refutes the resignation letter allegedly issued by him. He did not do so. Even when he received notice from this Court in this writ petition, he has not appeared. Obviously therefore, the 4th respondent stands by his resignation and Ext.R2(b) is not disputed. It is not challenged on any ground other than that it is issued under compulsion. If that were so, the best person to speak on it was the 4th respondent. He not having been done it, there is no injustice made out warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.9/12.