(1.) ISSUES raised in these writ petitions are connected, and therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. The documents referred to in this judgment are those produced in WP(C) No. 9468/2010.
(2.) IN 2005, election was held to Chengannur Municipality and the petitioners herein were elected from Ward Nos. 9 & 6 respectively.
(3.) WHILE the petitioners were continuing as members, one of the members of the UDF coalition moved a no confidence motion against the 5th respondent, and this was seconded by the petitioner in WP(C) No. 9468/2010. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short), the State Election Commission authorised the 3rd respondent to convene a meeting of the Councillors. Accordingly, in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P2 notice dated 01/03/2010 convening the meeting on 15/03/2010. Notice was served on the members including the petitioners, and they presented themselves at the council hall, the venue of the meeting. Ext.P4 minutes show that as scheduled the meeting commenced at 11 AM and the 3rd respondent read out the motion of no confidence. Thereafter he informed the petitioners and 3 other Councillors, belonging to the LDF coalition, that by letter dated 15/03/2010, the 2nd respondent has intimated that they have already ceased to be members under Section 91(1)(k) of the Act and that therefore, they were ineligible to participate in the meeting. From Ext.P4 minutes, it is also seen that the petitioners refused to leave the venue of the meeting, and finally, with police assistance, they were removed. Thereafter the motion was taken up for discussion and out of 18 council members who were present, 17 did not participate in the voting. The 5th respondent, the Chairman of the Municipality, voted against the motion. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent declared the motion as defeated.