IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35240 of 2009(O)
1. T.R.KRISHNAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DR.D.BALAKRISHNAN,
... Respondent
2. S.RADHAKRISHNAN,
3. P.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR,
4. N.T.NAIR, MEMBER, B.O.S FOR ELECTION,
5. MURALI MOHANLAL,
6. R.SREEKUMARAN NAIR,
7. DR.K.SURENDRAN,
8. V.VIMAL PRAKASH,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :07/12/2009
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.35240 OF 2009
--------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of December 2009
----------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.2442 of 2009 on
the file of the Munsiff court, Thrissur. Suit is for declaration
and for injunction, both prohibitory mandatory, and the
respondents are the defendants. Election to the council
membership of one institution conducted by defendants 1 to
7 in which the 8th respondent is stated to have been elected
is challenged in the suit by the plaintiff contending that the
entire election process is vitiated. With the suit, the plaintiff
has moved an application for interim injunction to restrain
the 8th defendant from assuming office of the elected post.
Grievance espoused by the petitioner is that despite several
posting on the interlocutory application and even after the
respondents filed their objections to that application, there is
delay in hearing and disposing that petition. Petitioner
seeks issue of a writ/order/direction from this court to the
court below for an expeditious disposal of his interlocutory
application (Ext.P2), invoking the supervisory jurisdiction
vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution
W.P.(C).No.35240 OF 2009
of India.
2. Having regard to the submissions made by the
counsel for the petitioner with reference to the materials
tendered in the writ petition, I find no notice to the
respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with.
The court below is directed to hear and dispose Ext.P2
application within three weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. The learned
counsel submits that the assumption of office by the 8th
respondent to the elected post is fixed on 13/12/2009 and so
much so, even if a favourable order is given in Ext.P2
application, beyond that date, it may not serve any purpose.
Petitioner can canvass before the court, in the hearing of his
Ext.P2 application that the assumption of office of the 8th
respondent shall be subject to the orders to be passed on
the application pending consideration before the court. The
learned Munsiff is also directed to take note of the above
aspect, and pass appropriate orders while disposing Ext.P2
application on its merit in accordance with law.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE