1. The writ petitioner, being the President of the third respondent Grama Panchayat, seeks a direction in the nature of certiorari to the first respondent not to entertain any adjudication on Exhibit P1 petition filed by the second respondent on the premise that it is frivolous and malefic.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, having contested the elections to the Panchayat Committee of the third respondent Panchayat in 2010, was declared elected against his main rival, the second respondent. According to the petitioner, after the petitioner has become the President of the Grama Panchayat, the second respondent, smarting under the defeat, has started maligning the petitioner's character by filing one frivolous complaint or another, ceaselessly. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that the second respondent, in his unabated efforts of character assassination, is said to have filed Exhibit P1 petition before the first respondent invoking Section 35 (1) (o) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Seeking, inter alia, quashing of Exhibit P1, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that for disqualifying an elected member certain eventualities have to occur and that a mere allegation of disqualification is not sufficient in that regard. Expatiating on his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that in terms of Section 35 of the Act, a competent authority should have found adversely against an elected candidate before the spectre of disqualification could be raised. According to him, in the present instance, none of the authorities has found any issue against the petitioner, especially on the ground that he is liable for any loss to the Panchayat, or for wasting or misusing its resources.

4. The learned counsel has further contended that the first respondent, instead of straight away issuing summons to the petitioner, ought to have conducted a preliminary enquiry to form a prima facie opinion before subjecting the petitioner to any adjudication in terms of Section 36 of the Act. The learned counsel has eventually submitted that the second respondent has taken recourse to sheer abuse of process and the first respondent has mechanically issued the summons proposing to conduct trial into the baseless allegations levelled by the second respondent.

5. Though the learned counsel has made very elaborate submissions on the merits of the issue, especially with reference to the allegations contained in Exhibit P1 petition filed by the second respondent, this Court does not propose to have any discussion on it, for it may prejudice the cause of either of the parties before the first respondent Commission.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent has submitted that essentially the petitioner has raised two objections and that both the objections stand squarely answered by the judicial precedents of this Court. Concerning the objection that there ought to have been an initial adjudication by a competent authority, such as Ombudsman, into any of the allegations, the learned Standing Counsel would contend that the enquiry by the learned Ombudsman, contemplated under Section 271J of the Act, for disqualifying a candidate applies prior to the election. In so far as Section 35 of the Act is concerned, it is with regard to subsequent disqualification after successful candidature -- once elected. He has further submitted that even regarding the audit and fact finding concerning misuse or abuse of power in terms of Section 215, it has no application in the present instance. In support of his submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has drawn my attention to an unreported judgment dated 15.12.2014 of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 13657/2014.

7. Concerning the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before issuing process the respondent Commission ought to have formed a prima facie opinion based on a preliminary e