LAWS(KER)-2000-6-25

RETNAMMA RAVEENDRAN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION TRIVANDRUM

Decided On June 01, 2000
RETNAMMA RAVEENDRAN Appellant
V/S
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First petitioner is the President of the third respondent Grama Panchayat, second petitioner is the Vice President and third and fourth petitioners are members of the Grama Panchayat. The fourth respondent alongwith five others moved a 'no confidence motion', Ext. P1, dated 3.4.2000 before the Panchayat Deputy Director, Alappuzha. The Panchayat Deputy Director by notice dated 5.4.2000 convened a meeting on 25.4.2000 at 11.00 A.M.. The contention of the petitioners is that at the time when 'no confidence motion' was given the Panchayat Deputy Director has no authority to receive 'no confidence motion' and at any event, she has no power to preside over such a meeting. It is also contended by petitioners that when the meeting was conducted at 11.00 A.M. two objections were raised. First regarding jurisdiction of the Panchayat Deputy Director in convening the meeting and presiding over the meeting and the second objection is regarding non issuance of notice to the Vice President. It is contended by the petitioners that the Panchayat Deputy Director, second respondent, was convinced about the objections regarding her absence of power in convening the meeting and the meeting was adjourned. But due to pressure from outside six members of the Panchayat again assembled at 1.00 P.M. and it was presided by the second respondent herself and Ext. P1 resolution of no confidence was passed at 1.45 P.M. Petitioners rely on various newspaper reports and Asianet coverage on the aspect.

(2.) S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') provides that 'no confidence motion' can be moved against the President or Vice President only in accordance with the procedure laid down. Therefore, it is mandatory that provisions in the Act have to be complied with while moving 'no confidence motion'. S.157(2) of the Act provides that such proposed motion should be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf. S.157(2) reads as follows:

(3.) Since here the 'no confidence motion' was given to the Deputy Director of Panchayat who was not an officer authorised by the Election Commissioner, the submission of 'no confidence motion' is illegal and without jurisdiction. Convening of a meeting by an officer authorised by the Government is also illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the Amendment Act. Therefore, decision taken in such a meeting is invalid and cannot be taken into account.