NARAYANAN Vs. DELAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delampady Grama Panchayat in Kasaragod District has got 12 elected members constituting the Panchayat Committee, the 3rd respondent. Ext. P4 resolution was passed by the 3rd respondent in the meeting held on 25.1.2002. Petitioner, an elected member of the Panchayat seeks to quash Ext. P4 and to declare that the President or any member who presides over the Panchayat Committee meeting is not entitled to cast vote in the first instance when there is tie, and that the action of the 2nd respondent in casting two votes in the meeting held on 25.1.2002 in favour of Ext. P4 resolution is illegal. He also seeks for a further declaration that Ujampady Meethana Hithalu Cross Bar cum Bridge Project cannot be included as a work under the Scheduled Caste scheme. This Writ Petition has subsequently been amended incorporating the following reliefs also: to declare that R.10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure of Panchayat Meetings) Rule is invalid, to declare that S.161(6) of the Panchayat Raj Act does not empower the President or person presiding over the meeting to cast 2 votes, and to declare that S.161(6) is invalid in so far as it permits the person presiding over the meeting to exercise two votes in respect of one resolution of the committee.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Original Petition are as follows: The 1st respondent Panchayat decided to construct Ujampady Muthama Hithalu Cross Bar cum Bridge project in the S.C.P. sector, under the People Planning Programme for 2001-2002, and to forward the proposal to the District Planning Committee. The project was intended for the benefit of Scheduled Castes. Therefore it became necessary to obtain the required certificate from the Scheduled Caste Development Department of the Government. The 1st respondent Panchayat requested the Government of Kerala for the grant of the certificate. But, the Scheduled Caste Development Officer under the Govt. of Kerala declined the certificate for Ujampady Muthama Hithalu Cross Bar cum Bridge project for the reason that 50% of the agricultural land that may be benefitted by the said project does not belong to Scheduled Caste people. Under the circumstances, the Standing Committee (Development) of the Panchayat decided to recommend to the 1st respondent to drop Ujampady Muthama Hithalu Cross Bar cum Bridge project and instead to implement Natakkallu Lift Irrigation and Bannur S.C. Konany Lift Irrigation Projects. But when this question was taken up in the meeting of the Panchayat Committee held on 25.1.2002 there was difference of opinion among the committee members and hence that item was left to be decided by majority of votes of the members present. The meeting was presided over by the 2nd respondent President of the Panchayat. In the poll, out of the total strength of 12 (including the President), six members supported the decision of the Standing Committee and six (including the President) voted against. Since the number of the members who supported the decision of the Standing Committee and who opposed the same was evenly balanced, the President exercised the casting vote which tilted the balance and led to the passing of Ext. P4 resolution. Petitioner is one among the six members who supported the decision of the Standing Committee. Naturally he does not want Ext. P4 to be implemented. Ext. P4 resolution is attacked mainly on the ground that it is the result of the President of the Panchayat casting the vote twice, one in the first instance and the second as casting vote in favour of the self same resolution.

(3.) Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a joint counter affidavit. On the basis of R.10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure of Panchayat Meetings) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) they contend that all elected members present in the meeting including the member presiding the meeting have got the right to cast their votes and in cases of equality of votes the person presiding can exercise a casting vote also. It is therefore submitted that Ext. P4 is validly passed in strict compliance with the procedure laid down in that behalf.