JOSEPH Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the President of Manakad Panchayat in Idukki District. THE Panchayat has a strength of eight members of whom one has resigned. Five members of the Panchayat, respondents 5 to 9 gave notice to the 2nd respondent, District Panchayat Officer, of their intention to move ext. P2 motion of no confidence in the President. THE 2nd respondent convened a meeting of the Panchayat to consider the motion and issued notices to the members of the Panchayat Ext. P1 is a copy of the notice served on the petitioner. THEreupon, the petitioner filed this original petition under art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext P1 and to direct the 2nd respondent to forebear from proceeding further in pursuance of Ext. P1. Respondents 5 to 9 have got themselves impleaded as supplemental respondents.

(2.) EXT. P1 is challenged in the original petition mainly on two grounds, namely, that the 2nd respondent has no legal competency to convene the meeting as he purported to do under EXT. P1, and that EXT. P2 resolution not being in the form notified by the Government should not have been acted upon by the 2nd respondent.

(3.) THE rules referred to in S. 143 (2) have been made by the Government. THEy are Kerala Panchayats (Delegation of Powers) Rules, 1963 (for short'the Rules' ). R. 2 states that any delegation under sub-s. (2) of s. 143 of the Act, shall be made only with the previous sanction of the government.