IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23594 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.KRISHNAKUMAR,S/O.CHANDRASEKHARA WARRIOR, P.V.WARRIOM VEEDU, MANNADI KALAYIL, KADAMBANADU, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY KADAMBANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADAMBANADU SOUTH.P.O., PATHANMTHITTA. 2. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.23594 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner quite in extenso, the fundamental issue raised for decision before the State Election Commission, on the application of the petitioner, is as to whether there is cogent material to conclude that he had absented himself for three meetings consecutively to incur the disqualification in terms of Section 35(K) of the Panchayat Raj Act. This essentially is primarily a question of fact. It would depend upon the materials that the Panchayat has in its possession to prove the service of the notices of the meeting on the petitioner in terms of the relevant laws since the allegation of the petitioner is that notices were not served on him while the Panchayat would contend that the notices were served by affixture. At any rate, I do not deem it appropriate to enter on an adjudication on that issue particularly when the proceeding before the Commission has already taken 7 months and the final answer need not be further dragged on. All that the Commission WPC.23594/09 Page numbers would state is that prima facie the materials do not provide overwhelming support to the case of the petitioner. Preliminary objections having already been considered by the Commission, it is appropriate that the Commission finally decides on the main matter at the earliest. Let this be done within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All issues on merits are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.20/8.