IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29505 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.VISWANATHA PILLAI, AGED 39 YEARS, PUTHEN VEEDU, MANAPPALLY NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 2. TALUK LIBARY TRIBUNAL, KERALA STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL OFFICE, KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. 3. RAJEEV C., MALLASERIL, THAZHAVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.29505 OF 2010(K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that she is the returned candidate in an election held to the Taluk Library Council, as representative from Sree Mahadevadesai Smaraka Granthasala No.169/47, conducted on 11.10.2009. The 3rd respondent, the defeated candidate filed an application before the Taluk Library Tribunal without impleading the petitioner. In that proceedings Ext.P1 order was passed declaring the election to be invalid and setting aside the same. Against Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has filed Appeal No.1/2010, before the Kerala State Library Council. That appeal is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, it is stated that Ext.P3 order was issued, relieving the petitioner from the duties. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed. 2. At the stage of admission, while issuing notice this court by order dated 24.9.2010 stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3. 3. Today, counsel for the 3rd respondent has appeared and I heard him also. WPC.No. 29505/2010 :2 : 4. Irrespective of the contentions raised by the petitioner on the merits of the controversy, as at present, the position is that the appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 order of the 2nd respondent is pending consideration of the first respondent, it is for the first respondent to deal with the appeal No.1/2010 and pass orders in accordance with law. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that until orders are passed as above, the interim order passed by this court on 24.9.2010 will remain in force. Petitioner to produce a copy of the judgment along with a coy of the writ Petition before the first respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/