IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRP.No. 15 of 2009() ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2008 IN AS.(ELECTION) NO.94/2007 of DISTRICT COURT , KOLLAM) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/ RESPONDENT NO.1/ PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S.MOHAMMED RAFI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ANZAR MANZIL, VADAKKUMKARA KIZHAKKE CHERRY, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/ APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FATHAHUDEEN, AGED 33 YEARS,VADAKKATHIL VALIYAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VADAKKUMKARA KIZHAKKE CHERRY, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 2. NAVAS, AGED 34 YEARS, KOPPADATHU, KOPPADATHU, VADAKKUMKARA, KIZHAKKE CHERRY, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 3. BINU, AGED 30 YEARS, VIJAYAMANDIRAM, VADAKKUMKARA KIZHAKKE CHERRY, UMAYANALLOOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, ALONG WITH CRP NO.61 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. Nos.15 & 61 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of December, 2011 O R D E R These Civil Revisions concern order of the learned Additional Munsiff in O.P(Ele.) No.2 of 2005. Parties are referred as arrayed in C.R.P. No.15 of 2009. 2. O.P(Elec.) No.2 of 2005 is filed by the petitioner challenging election of the first respondent (who is petitioner in C.R.P. No.61 of 2009) to the Mayyanad Grama Panchayat in the election held on 24.09.2005 Petitioner challenged the election of first respondent on various grounds including double voting. During pendency of the election petition petitioner sought for and obtained amendment of the election petition. Learned Munsiff ultimately allowed the election petition on 12.04.2007, set aside the election of the first respondent and declared petitioner as duly elected. First respondent challenged that order before the learned Additional District Judge in A.S(Elec.) No.94 of 2007. Learned District Judge allowed the appeal and remitted the election petition to the learned Munsiff for fresh disposal issuing certain directions in the matter. Petitioner challenged the remand C.R.P. Nos.15 & 61 of 2009 -: 2 :- judgment in C.R.P. No.1114 of 2007. This Court disposed of that Civil Revision as per order dated 24.07.2008 setting aside the judgment and remanding the case to the learned District Judge to consider the appeal afresh in the light of the directions contained in the order. So far as the order allowing amendment of election petition is concerned this Court directed learned District Judge to consider the legality of that amendment as also the question whether amendment caused any prejudice to the first respondent. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 24.07.2008 in C.R.P. No.1114 of 2007 learned District Judge again considered the appeal and entering a finding that amendment of the election petition is legal and that no prejudice is caused to the first respondent, again remanded the election petition to the learned Munsiff for fresh decision issuing directions as to the manner in which evidence regarding double voting is to be appreciated. That remand judgment is challenged by the petitioner in C.R.P. No.15 of 2009 while finding entered by the learned District Judge as to the validity and correctness of the ordering allowing amendment of election petition and that the amendment has not caused any prejudice to the first respondent is challenged by the C.R.P. Nos.15 & 61 of 2009 -: 3 :- first respondent in C.R.P. No.62 of 2009. 4. When these Civil Revisions came up for hearing this day, it is submitted by counsel on both sides that the election petition was filed in challenge of the election held on 24.09.2005, first respondent has completed his full term as elected member of the Panchayat, that fresh election was held on the expiry of the term and that in that election petitioner and first respondent were elected from separate wards. It is also submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that since term of the first respondent has already run out, fresh election has been held and both himself and first respondent were elected from separate wards and hence petitioner is not desirous of prosecuting O.P (Eelc.) No.2 of 2005 further. Petitioner has no objection in closing E.P(Elec.) No.2 of 2005. 5. In view of the above it is not necessary go into the contentious issues raised in these Civil Revisions. What is required is to close the election petition in view of the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner before me. Resultantly, these Civil Revisions are disposed of directing that O.P(Elec.) No.2 of 2005 of the court of learned Munsiff, Kollam will stand closed. The order passed by the learned Munsiff C.R.P. Nos.15 & 61 of 2009 -: 4 :- on that election petition as well as the judgment of learned District Judge in A.S(Elec.) No.94 of 2007 will stand vacated. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv