MATHEW JOSEPH Vs. ARAKULAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When C.M.P. No. 12041/1990 came up for orders learned counsel appearing on either side wanted the Original Petition itself heard and disposed of. Accordingly, I heard them in detail. I am disposing of the Original Petition.

(2.) Government by Ext. P4 order, G.O.(MS) No. 32/90 dated 25-6-1990 extended the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to the Arakulam Panchayat area in Idukki District with effect from the date of publication of the notification. Petitioner challenges the notification on the ground that Resolution No. 13 stated to have been passed by the Arakulam Panchayat requesting for the extension of the provisions of the Act to the area covered by the Panchayat was not one validly passed. Reliance has been made to R.4 (1) and 5 of the Kerala Panchayats (Proceedings of Panchayat Meetings and Committees) Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. As per R.4(1) no meeting shall be held unless notice of the day and time when the meeting is to be held and the business to be transacted there at has been given at least 3 clear days before the date of the meeting. It means that the business to be transacted in a particular meeting should have been fixed earlier and its notice should have been given to the members at least three clear days before the date of the meeting. As per R.5 the agenda of the meeting should be prepared by the Executive Authority in consultation with the President and all items proposed to be considered in the meeting should be included in the agenda.

(3.) The agenda of the meeting of the Panchayat held on 21-2-1989 did not make mention of the resolution requesting the Government for extending the provisions of the Act to its area. Since the agenda was silent on this aspect the members were not given three clear days notice as contemplated by R.4(l) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, the absence of the agenda and three clear days notice to the members has vitiated the action taken by the Panchayat. The resolution which was passed without agenda, according to counsel, must be taken as invalid. On the basis of such an invalid resolution the Government should not have extended the Act to the Arakulam Panchayat.