IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 9588 of 2011(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.M.ABDUL RAHMAN, S/O. MARAKAR PILLAI, AGED 75, X/1, CHEMPAKASSERY ROAD, ALUVA-683 101. BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE PRESIDENT, KERALA SPORTS COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF YOUTH AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 4. K.CHANDRAKUMAR, S/O. KOLAPPAPILLAI, AGED 53, RESIDING AT E.C.9/839, V.J.LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. KERALA SPORTS APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SUDHEER R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 9588 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT In an election that was held in the Kerala State Sports Council on 13.8.2009, the petitioner claims to have been elected to the post of Vice President. It is stated that against the said election, the fourth respondent filed Exhibit P3 appeal before the fifth respondent. According to the petitioner, long thereafter that he was impleaded as a party to the said appeal and he was issued Exhibit P4 notice, requiring him to appear on 26th February, 2011, which, according to the petitioner, has been adjourned to 26.3.2011. 2. On receipt of Exhibit P4 notice, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the following prayers: “(i) To issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records related to Exhibit P3 Appeal and Exhibit P4 summons and to quash the same. (ii) To declare that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an Appeal against an order passed by the 3rd respondent declaring the Election results. (iii) To declare that the 4th respondent is not an aggrieved person entitled to prefer an Appeal under Rule 47(1) and b of the Rules.” WP(C) No.9588/11 - 2 - 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the appeal is belated and is not maintainable before the fifth respondent. In my view, even if the appeal is defective for any reason as contended by the petitioner, the primary step that the petitioner has to take on receipt of Exhibit P4 notice is to appear before the appellate authority, raise his objections and challenge the proceedings, if any adverse order has been passed against him. Therefore, at this stage, in my view, the Writ Petition is premature and for that reason, without prejudice the aforesaid course open to the petitioner, the same is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs