IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 922 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OPE.6/2010 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ AMBROSE KOLENCHERY, AGED 41 S/O.AVARACHAN, KOLENCHERY VEEDU,NJARAKKAL BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON RESPONDENT: --------------- DINESAN K.M, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, KALLUMADATHIL, CRA LANE, NJARAKKAL, PIN-682508 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.922 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of Ext.P11, order dated November 12, 2010 to the extent it concerned I.A.No.1947 of 2010 in O.P(El.)No.6 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kochi. Petitioner and respondent contested election from ward No.15 of Njarakkal grama panchayath. Respondent was declared elected by a margin of one vote over the petitioner. Petitioner challenged election of respondent and sought to declare himself as elected mainly on two grounds; violation of Sec.78 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (for short, “the Act”) in that, four ballot papers were found missing at the time of counting but the Returning Officer has not taken action as contemplated in Sec.78 of the Act; and secondly, a few votes cast in favour of petitioner was declared invalid while certain votes cast in favour of respondent though invalid were taken into account. Petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1947 and 1948 of 2010, the former under Sec.94(1) of the Act r/w Rule 1 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) to prevent declaration of result of respondent and to restrain him from taking part in the meetings of the grama panchayath and O.P(C).No.922 of 2010 : 2 : voting. The latter application is filed under Sec.94(1) of the Act r/w Sec.151 of the Code for a recounting. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that so far as the common order to the extent it concerned I.A.No.1948 of 2010 is concerned an application for review has already been filed and the same is pending in the court below. That part of the order is not under challenge in this petition. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order to the extent it concerned I.A.No.1947 of 2010. Though various arguments were advanced by learned counsel for petitioner to show that the order of the court below is not correct, respondent is not entitled to take part in the meetings of the grama panchayath, exercise vote and accept remuneration, after arguing the matter for some time learned counsel has requested that trial court may be directed to dispose of the election petition within the statutory period of six months as provided under Sec.93(5) of the Act. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner I am inclined to accept that request. Resultantly this petition is disposed of directing the court below to dispose of the election petition within the statutory period. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-