JUDGMENT

1.The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-

“i To issue a writ of Quo Warranto or any other appropriate writ, direction or order requiring the fourth respondent to show under what authority he had been holding the office of Vice-President and Chairman of Standing Committee of Finance of Nannamukku Grama Panchayath after passing of Exhibit P1 dated 14-1-2022 and to restrain the fourth respondent from continuing in that office.

ii. To declare that fourth respondent has no authority and not entitled to hold the post of and continue as Vice-President and Chairman of Standing Committee of Finance of Nannamukku Grama Panchayath after passing of Exhibit P1 dated 14-1-2022.

iii. To direct the fourth respondent to refrain from holding the office of Vice-President and Chairman of Standing Committee of Finance of Nannamukku Grama Panchayath by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.”

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission and the learned Government Pleader.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the election of the 4th respondent as member of the 3rd respondent Panchayat stands set aside by Exhibit P1 judgment of the Munsiff- Magistrate Court, Ponnani dated 14.1.2022. It is contended that by operation of Section 107 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the effect of the declaration of the election of the 4th respondent to be void is to take effect as soon as it is pronounced by the court and that therefore the 4th respondent has no manner of right or authority to continue to be the Vice President of the Panchayat and the Chairman of the Standing Committee for Finance. It is submitted that in A.S.No.5/2022, the Additional District Court, Manjeri has only permitted the 4th respondent to discharge functions as a Member of the Panchayat with a condition that he will not have any voting right and that he shall not collect any remuneration for the sitting of the Panchayat meetings or any of its Committees till the disposal of the I.A. on merits. It is contended that the interim order of stay was challenged before this Court in O.P.(C).No.182 of 2022 by the 4th respondent, but the same was dismissed. However, it is contended that in the light of the clear provisions of Sections 107 and 153 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the 4th respondent would have no power whatsoever to continue as Vice President or as Chairman of a Standing Committee and that therefore the writ of quo warranto is liable to be issued.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of this Court in Muraleedharan V.V. v.P.G.Shaji [2012 (2) KHC 209], Padmakumar v. Unnikrishnan [ 2004 (1) KLT 1097], judgemnt dated 1.1.2008 in W.P.(C).No.38192/2007, judgment dated 24.10.2013 in OP(C)No.3338/2013.

5.Per contra, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission would contend that Exhibit P2 order has already been unsuccessfully challenged by the 4th respondent before this Court in O.P(C).No.182/2022. The 1st petitioner in this writ petition was the respondent in the said O.P as well. It is submitted that since Exhibit P2 order has already been rendered by the appellate court and since the appeal is pending consideration before the said court, it would be for the petitioner to approach the appellate court and get a clarification with regard to the interdiction, if any, as against the 4th respondent continuing in office as Vice-President and a writ petition for the said purpose is not maintainable. Referring to the interim orders rendered in the writ petitions filed before this Court against orders of the Kerala State Election Commission, it is contended that where this Court interdicts the concerned member from holding the post of President, Vice-President or Chairman of Standing Committees of the Panchyat, the interim orders specifically direct so and in the absence of the same, such interdicti