1. The Original Petition has been filed to set aside Ext.P7 order passed by the District Judge, Thrissur in A.S. No.39/2012 arising from O.P.No.30/2010 on the file of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur, Petitioner was a candidate in the election held on 25-10-2010 from Ward No.15 of Puthoor Grama Panchayat in Thrissur district. The respondent herein was declared as the elected candidate. Petitioner challenged the election of the respondent as the returned candidate alleging that seven persons who voted for the respondent, had exercised double voting in asmuch as casting two votes in wards/panchayath. On the materials Placed, upholding the challenge of the petitioner, seven votes cast in favour of the respondent were found void and his election was set aside. Petitioner was declared as the elected candidate. As against that decision, the respondent preferred the aforesaid appeal, A.S. No. 39/2012 referred to above. In that appeal, he applied for a stay of the operation of the order setting aside his election and declaring the petitioner as the returned candidate. Petitioner, the respondent in such appeal, filed a counter opposing the stay petition contending that the decision rendered in the election petition become effective from the date of the order and pursuant thereto he has taken oath as a member of the panchayat. Petitioner and also the appellant moved separate petitions for getting some documents from the panchayat for consideration of the petition for stay. The learned District Judge dismissing those petitions for production of documents passed Ext.P7 order directing for status quo immediately before the passing of the final order in the election petition subject to the condition imposed that the appellant/respondent in the present petition, shall not have any voting power as a panchayat member in its meetings. Correctness of Ext.P7 order is impeached in this Original Petition invoking the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court under Articke 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. When the Original Petition came up for consideration, the respondent entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Section 107 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the Act’, contended that an order under Section 100 and 101 of the Act shall take effects as soon as it is pronounced by the court. Pointing out that there is no similar provision as under the Representation of People Act, 1951, enabling the court which passed the order to keep in abeyance the operation of its order and also that of the superior forum when an appeal is filed to passed orders of stay the operation of the order challenged in the appeal, there is no identical provision in the Act, is the submission of the counsel. After Ext.P1 order rendered by the learned Munsiff in the election petition setting aside the election of the respondent and declaring the petitioner as the duly elected member, he has taken oath as a member of the panchayat, is the submission of the counsel. Ext.P5 certificate issued by the President of the panchayat and Exts.P6 and P7 photographs are also relied by the counsel to reinforce the submission made as above Ext. P7 order passed by the court below directing status quo ante immediately before passing of the order, at any rate, cannot be sustained as the order has already come into effect on passing of such order and, further, the petitioner has sworn to as a member in the place of the respondent, is the submission of the counsel, Reliance is placed on “Fulena Singh v. Vijay Kumar Sinha and others” ((2009) 5 SC 290) to contend that unreasonable orders of stay of operation of the order passed in election petition is unsustainable. The learned counsel relied on “Union of India and others v. Rakesh Kumar and others” ((2010) 4 SCC 50) to contend that there is no inherent right even to contest elections since there are explicit legislations over t