1. The petitioner, being the member of Ward No.II of Pampadumpara Grama Panchayat, has a grievance that though five vacancies of ward members have been in existence since 09.11.2011 owing to the disqualification of the incumbents, the respondent Election Commission has chosen to conduct the bye elections hardly six months before the general elections are due. Seeking judicial intervention on that count, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, taking me through the entire record, has submitted that on 09.11.2011 the respondent Election Commission, in a batch of election petitions, declared five ward members of the Grama Panchayat as disqualified. Soon thereafter, the aggrieved persons filed W.P.(C)No.30341/2011 and batch, but without much success. Even W.A.No.406/2012 and batch filed against the common judgments were dismissed by a learned Division Bench of this Court on 13.10.2014. The learned counsel has stressed that throughout, either in the writ petitions or in the writ appeals, there had been no stay against the orders of the respondent Election Commission.

3. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the term of the present elected body of the Grama Panchayat is to expire by 31.10.2015, i.e. hardly seven months hereafter. Having waited for about four years, the respondent Election Commission now issued Exhibit P3 election notification calling for bye elections to be held on 08.04.2015. According to the learned counsel, the respondent Election Commission ought to wait for the next six or seven months, so that the general elections will be held and spending of public money on bye elections will become evitable.

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that once the notification is issued the modal code of conduct comes into force, thereby putting on hold all developmental activities, apart from affecting the fund flow as well.

5. In sum and substance, the singular contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that holding bye elections a few months before the general elections are actually due is neither in the interest of the Grama Panchayat nor that of the general public. Eventually, the learned counsel, to his credit, has submitted that the statutory position is, however, otherwise. According to him, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could as well transcend the statutory limits to sub-serve the public interest. The paramount consideration of a public law remedy in the hands of a constitutional court, contends the learned counsel, is the welfare of the people rather than a mechanical adherence to the statutory provisions.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Election Commission has strenuously opposed the claims and contentions of the petitioner. Without further ado, he has brought to my notice Section 149 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act ('the Act' for brevity) to contend, with specific reference to sub-sections (3) and (4) thereof, that a casual vacancy can be filled within six months before the ordinary date of retirement by efflux of time. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on an unreported judgment dated 11.03.2010 in W.P.(C)No.7696/2010 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

7. In expatiation of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has taken me through the unreported judgment to lay emphasis that the said judgment was rendered almost under identical factual circumstances. The learned counsel has eventually contended that on 13.03.2015 Exhibit P3 notification was issued; as such, in terms of Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution of India, no judicial intervention could be made thereafter.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Election Commission, apart from perusing the record.

9. On appreciation of the rival submissions,