CHACKO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter arises under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short'the Act')- THE short question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Panchayat Committee has got the power to enhance the strength of the standing committee, once the strength was fixed immediately after the election to the Panchayat.

(2.) THE first Petitioner is the President of the Ramapuram grama Panchayat, the 4th respondent herein. Other two petitioners are members of the said Panchayat, who were inducted as members of the standing committee subsequently. THE strength of the standing committee was initially fixed at 3. THE Panchayat by resolution No. II dated 29. 9. 1998 fixed the total strength of the standing committee at 5. Petitioners 2 and 3 were elected to the two vacancies thus arising. THE said resolution was cancelled by the Government by order dated 5. 1. 1999 (Ext. P4) in exercise of their power vested under S. 191 of the Act. THE English translation of Ext. P4 is Ext. P4 (a ). THE reason stated in the said order is that there is no legal provision in the Act or in the Rules enabling the Panchayat to enhance or reduce the strength of the standing committee once it has been constituted. Ext. P4 order passed by the first respondent Government is under challenge. According to the petitioners, the provisions of the proviso to sub-s. (2) of S. 162. of the Act clearly enables the panchayat to vary the strength of the standing committee at any time. THE only inhibition according to them is that the strength of the standing committee shall not be less than three and shall not exceed 5. THE counsel submitted that in the instant case the strength of the standing committee as originally constituted was fixed at three and that when it was found that the work of the standing committee has increased enormously, the Panchayat decided to enhance the strength from three to five, which is well within the limit provided under s. 162 (2) proviso. He also submitted that pursuant to the resolution, petitioners 2 and 3 were elected. He also submitted that the term of the standing committee also expires by the end of September. He submitted that Ext. P4 order passed by the Government is illegal, arbitrary and without any basis.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 9, on the basis of the averments in the counter affidavit, submitted that the panchayat committee cannot enhance the strength of the standing committee originally constituted.