SAITHALI NEELANGADANAGED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the President of the 2nd respondent Kalikavu Grama Panchayat has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 notice dated 19.05.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent, under sub-section (3) of Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, convening a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion of no confidence proposed in Ext.P1 notice of intention dated 18.05.2020, against the petitioner, delivered by respondents 4 to 14 to the 3rd respondent, who is the officer authorised by the State Election Commission, Kerala in that behalf. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 3rd respondent not to proceed with Exts.P1 and P2 during the period of lock down in connection with COVID- 19.

(2.) On 25.05.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for the 1 st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, Kerala took notice for the 3rd respondent, who is the officer authorised by the Commission to convene the meeting of the elected members of the 2 nd respondent Panchayat to consider the motion of no confidence. This Court issued notice to respondents 2, 3 and respondents 5 to 14 by speed post.

(3.) On 25.05.2020, this Court granted an interim order staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 notice issued by the 3rd respondent, for a period of one month. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission was directed to ascertain and get instructions as to whether or not Ext.P2 notice has been sent by registered post or has been served in any other mode, etc. and whether general election to the Panchayat will have to be conducted by October, 2020. Such a direction was issued by this Court, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P2 notice convening the meeting of the elected members of the Panchayath for the consideration of the motion of no confidence proposed in Ext.P1 notice, was served in person and not by registered post, as mandated by sub-section (4) of Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, and as such, the procedure adopted by the 3 rd respondent is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Anitha v. Kanjirappilly Block Panchayat [2004 (3) KLT 211].