G NARENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the President and Vice President of the third respondent Kadampanad Panchayat. Written notice of a no-confidence motion against them was delivered on 5-2-1992 under S.54(2) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960. A meeting was convened to be held on 10-3-1992 for consideration of the motion. Notice was given accordingly. But that day happened to be declared a holiday by the Kerala Government to celebrate the success of the State Football team in the Santhosh Trophy Football Tournament. The District Panchayat Officer thereupon adjourned the meeting by his proceedings Ext. P2 relying on the proviso to R.3 of the Kerala Panchayats (Proceedings of Panchayat Meetings and Committees) Rules, 1962. Notice was thereafter issued for holding a fresh meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion on 2-4-1992. Petitioners have come forward with this original petition with the plea that a fresh meeting to consider the no confidence motion could not be held on 2-4-1992.

(2.) S.54 of the Kerala Panchayats Act deals with motions of no confidence against the President or Vice President of a Panchayat. Petitioners' case is that under the provisions of S.54 a meeting for the purpose of considering a motion of no confidence shall not be adjourned for any reason. But having adjourned it, it was not possible to convene another meeting within six months because of the alleged bar created by sub-s.(14) of S.54. Petitioners' case is that though the adjournment of the meeting on 10-3-1992 was illegal and without any reason, a fresh meeting to consider the no confidence motion within six months therefrom, on 2-4-1992, is plainly barred by S.54(14).

(3.) There is a further contention raised that even the meeting proposed to be held on 10-3-1992 was bad, being contrary to the provisions of sub-s.(3) of S.54 which requires such a meeting to be held within a period of thirty days from the date on which the notice under sub-s.(2) of S.54 was delivered to the authorised officer. The notice in this case was delivered on 5-2-1992 whereas the meeting was proposed to be held only on 10-3-1992 beyond the period of thirty days prescribed by sub-s.(3) of S.54.