IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 10684 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- L.LATHA, MEMBER, WARD NO.5, CHERUNNIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT KUTTICHAL VEEDU, DHALAVAPURAM, CHERUNNIYOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- AJITHA ANIRUDHAN, AAKHIL NIVAS, AJATHUMURI, VENNICODE.P.O, VARKALA. (MEMBER, WARD NO.II, CHERUNNIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC EC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 10684 OF 2010-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed by the State Election Commission wherein a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the Original Petition, 85/2009 was rejected. It is a case where alleging disqualification under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, a single petition was filed by the respondent herein against various members. According to the petitioner, the Act does not provide for filing such a petition alleging disqualification against different members. The view taken by the State Election Commission is that there is no bar in filing a single petition against more than one member. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even going by the provisions of the Act, filing of a petition can only be against 'A Member'. It cannot therefore be taken that a single petition can be filed against more than one member. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Commission also. 4. The Commission has only considered the maintainability of the wpc 10684/2010 2 original petition. The main petition is still pending. The petitioner, if she is aggrieved, can challenge the validity of Ext.P4 if the final order is adverse to her. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is only discretionary and at the intermediate stages of a proceeding pending before a Forum, this Court will not be justified in entertaining a writ petition on a question regarding maintainability. Therefore, leaving open the contentions, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to challenge the order impugned, if ultimately the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order to be passed by the Commission. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/