IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29299 of 2010(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SAKUNTHALA. D, D/O.DEVAKI, AGED 59 YEARS, `ASRAMAM', MATHILIL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601. 2. LATHIKA KUMARI. P., W/O.M.K. MOHANACHANDRAN, 50 YEARS, LATHA BHAVAN, TKMC P.O., KARIKODE, KOLLAM-691 005. 3. INDIRA BHAI AMMA. S, W/O.SIVAPRASADAN NAIR. V, 59 YEARS, ERATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, NJARACKAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM-691 601. 4. K. VALSALA KUMARI, W/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, 57 YEARS, VILAYIL VEEDU, KALLUMTHAZHA P.O., KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 604. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K. RAMESH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC, K.S.E.COMMN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 29708 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NOS. 29299, 29349, 29708, 29782 & 35147 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT The above writ petitions are filed seeking to set aside Ext.P1 ordinance issued by the State Government, which affects the petitioners. The constitutional validity of Explanation of Section 30 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 86 of the Kerala Municipalities Act are under challenge in the writ petitions. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, on instructions submits that Ext.P1 ordinance elapsed on 13/7/2011 and therefore requested this Court to dismiss the writ petitions as infructuous. In the light of the above submission made and in view of the fact that Ext.P1 ordinance has become infructuous, no question survives for consideration. Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Explanation 2 to Section 30 of the Ordinance No.34 of 2010 dated 14th June, 2010, which reads as follows: “Explanation 2.-- For the purpose of this section, the part-time employees and those who receive honorarium shall be deemed to be employees.” The learned counsel or the petitioners submits that on the basis of the acting on Explanation 2 to Section 30 of Ext.P1 ordinance, the petitioners had resigned and contested the election. The learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions -2- W.P.(C).Nos.29299. 29349, 29708, 29782 & 35147/2010 submits that though they had resigned from the post on the basis of acting upon Explanation 2 to Section 30 of Ext.P1 ordinance. Now the ordinance has been elapsed from 13/7/2011 and the petitioners lost their jobs only because of the ordinance was in force during the time election. Since the ordinance has been elapsed from 13/7/2011, the petitioners request that a direction may be issued to the Government to consider their case of re-appointment to the post which they were holding at the time of resignation. Taking into consideration the ordinance has been elapsed from 13/7/2011 and further fact that the petitioners had tendered resignation for the purpose of contesting the election and on the basis Explanation 2 to Section 30 of Ext.P1 ordinance, the petitioners shall file a representation before the Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department, Thiruvananthapuram within a period of two weeks and if such a representation is filed by the petitioners as directed above, the Secretary shall consider the -3- W.P.(C).Nos.29299. 29349, 29708, 29782 & 35147/2010 same and pass appropriate orders within one month thereafter. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.