The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, particularly S.35, S.36, and S.37, and the application of the principle of estoppel by election in the context of seeking restoration of membership.

P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.

The appellant is the petitioner in the Original Petition. The Original Petition was filed praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 a notice issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat informing him that as per S.35(k) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act he had become disqualified to be a member of the Kizhakkambalam Panchayat with effect from 14.1.1998 and Ext. P9 copy of an order passed by the State Election Commission rejecting the applications filed by two members of the Kizhakkambalam Panchayat requesting the Election Commission to make an enquiry into the question whether the petitioner in the Original Petition had lost his membership and a petition filed by the petitioner himself complaining that the Panchayat was in error in not restoring to him his membership in the Panchayat on the basis of his application made under S.37(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. There is a prayer for a declaration that the petitioner continues to be a member of the Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat and is a duly elected Vice President of toe Panchayat and to restrain the Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat from electing a new Vice President in the place of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge having dismissed the Original Petition, the Writ Appeal has been filed.

2. The petitioner was elected as a member of the Kizhakkambalam Panchayat. Last meeting of the Panchayat that he attended was held on 14.10.1997. Thereafter the petitioner did not attend the meetings held on 21.10.1997,27.10.1997,6.11.1997, 4.12.1997,8.12.1997 and 2.1.1998. On 19.1.1998 the petitioner was issued the notice Ext. P2 by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat informing the petitioner that he had become disqualified to be a member of the Panchayat in terms of S.35(k) of the Ker al a Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner thereupon made an application dated 27.1.1998 under S.37(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act seeking a restoration of his membership. Meanwhile two other members of the Panchayat, one Mr. M.M. Mani and one Mr. Roy George, made applications before the State Election Commission under S.36(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act questioning the alleged disqualification of the petitioner under S.35(k) of the Act. These applications are seen dated 28.1.1998. Along with those applications, the said two applicants also enclosed copies of the application made by the petitioner before the Panchayat under S.37(2) of the Act, On 21.1.1998, the Kizhakkambalam Panchayat rejected the application under S.37(2) of the Act made by the petitioner for restoration of his membership. It is there-after that the petitioner purported to file a petition before the State Election Commission challenging the resolution of the Panchayat refusing to restore his membership. The State Election Commission held that the petitioner had acquiesced in his removal by seeking restoration of his membership under S.37(2) of the Act and hence the question whether he was disqualified under S.35(k) of the Act did not really arise for decision. The Election Commission also held that it had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the decision of the Panchayat rejecting the application for restoration under S.37(2) of the Act made by the petitioner. Thus the petition filed by Mr. M.M. Mani, Mr. Roy George and by the petitioner were dismissed.

3. According to the petitioner, he was got involved in a criminal case and he had oil. He had no proper notice of the meeting held on the several days in terms of the proviso to S.35(k) of the Act. He had not acquired any disqualification. His further case is that on coming to know of the meetings, he had made an application for leave through the Superintendent of the Sub Jail Muvattupuzha and the Panchayat was in error in rejecting his application. Even if the State Election Commission was right in holding that he had no right of appeal to the Election Commission against the decision of the Panchayat n