IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2830 of 2011(C) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ BABY THUPARAMBIL, ANGADIKADAVU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, MEMBER, AYYAMKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.C.CHACKO, S/O.CHACKO, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, POOMANTHODU P.O., MEMBER, AYAMKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT- 67 0 035. 2. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDINGS, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 2830 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 1st respondent are elected to Ayyamkunnu Grama Panchayath in Kannur District in the election held on 23.11.2010. Later, the first respondent filed a petition to declare that the petitioner had committed defection attracting disqualification as provided under Section 3(a) of Kerala Local Authorities(Prohibition of Defection)Act, 1999 read with Rule 4(1) of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules,2000(for short 'the Act' and 'the Rules' respectively). Since there occurred solitary day's delay in filing the above petition I.A No.40/2010 was filed for condoning the same. In fact, it was wrongly calculated as two days by the first respondent. The second respondent considered I.A No.40/2010 and passed Ext.P4 order dated 20.1.2011. As per the same, the delay in the matter of filing the petition was condoned. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner did not dispute the authority of the WPC.No.2830/2011 : 2 : second respondent to condone the delay on sufficient cause. In other words, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the second respondent is clothed with the power to condone the delay in terms of the provisions under Rule 4(1) of the Rules. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the cause of delay was inability to travel due to illness. True that while disposing of the said I.A, the expression, 'whatever may be the reason' has been employed by the second respondent. Clinching on the same it is contended that there was no application of mind and that the power to condone the delay was improperly exercised. At the same time, it is evident that the reason assigned for the delay in filing the petition was taken into consideration and the delay was computed as one day. A perusal of Ext.P1 would reveal that the said reason has been taken note of by the second respondent. Therefore, the mere use of the above extracted expression shall not be a reason for treating the order as perverse, or passed with a closed mind or tainted with illegality. It is only because there occurred only a solitary day's delay such an expression has been used. I am of the considered view that such a reason by WPC.No.2830/2011 : 3 : itself cannot and will not invite interference with the impugned order. It cannot be said that the second respondent has exercised the discretion in such manner warranting a judicial review. This writ petition lacks merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge