ALEXANDER Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for decision, which has given rise to fairly lengthy arguments, is whether the resolution passed by the Panchayat at its meeting held on 18 9 1968 to remove its president satisfies the requirements of sub-s.(13) of S.54 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. Sub-s.(13) of S.54 is in these terms:

(2.) The meeting was attended by 8 members. The total number of members of the Panchayat notified by the Director under S.5 is nine. Five of the eight members who had attended the meeting voted in favour of the resolution. It is submitted by counsel on behalf of the petitioner that three fifth has to be of the eight 'existing members of the Panchayat and not of the total number of members of the Panchayat notified under S.5. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Malide Kamiah v. The District Collector, Khammam and others reported in 1963 (II) An. W. R.129. This decision fully supports counsel. It is because of this decision that the case was referred to a Division Bench for hearing.

(3.) We conceive that the expression which is used in sub-s.(13) o S.54 " the total strength of the Panchayat" is different from the strength of the Panchayat at any given time which may be referred to as the 'existing strength' or the 'effective strength' as has been done by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By virtue of S.5, the total strength of the members of a Panchayat will have to be notified. The number so notified would be, we think, the total number of the members of the Panchayat. In some sections the strength has been referred to as the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat as under S.33(4) and in R.9 of the Kerala Panchayats (Proceedings of Panchayat Meetings and Committees) Rules, 1962. It is difficult to conceive that S.33 (4) by using the expression "sanctioned strength" referred to the total number of members notified under S.5, and R.9 also referred to the same strength, but that sub-s.(13) of S.54 referred to what we have indicated as the existing strength and not the total strength. In fact, if the argument of counsel is to be accepted, we have to add to the words used in sub-s.(13) of S.54 another word 'existing' or to read the sub-section to mean 'the then strength' of the Panchayat. Such expressions are frequently used when it is meant to refer to the strength of a body different from its total strength. Reference may be made to Art.94 and 179 of the Constitution where the expression used is "the then members". In contrast with this in Art.124(4), the expression used is "the total member ship of that House". The same expression is used in Art.61 of the Constitution of India. We consider that total strength of the Panchayat in sub-s.(13) of S.54 means the total number of members of the Panchayat as notified under S.5. We are supported in this view by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shyamanada Ganguly v. Abani Moham Mukherjee reported in AIR (38) 1951 Calcutta 420. With great respect, we are unable to accede to the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.