KUNHIMON Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that has been raised in this Writ petition is as to whether the Block Development Officer, Chavakkad (1st respondent herein) was disabled from drawing up Ext. P2, which had resulted in prejudice to the petitioners. THE first petitioner was functioning as the president and rest of the petitioners are the Members of the Vadakkekadu Grama panchayat. A no confidence motion came to be presented in the Panchayat. Though initially the officer had declared that the motion stood defeated, he had shortly thereafter declared that the motion stood carried. If the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, it would be possible for the first petitioner to continue as President of the Grama Panchayat, otherwise he will have to vacate office. THE brief facts could be narrated herein below.

(2.) THE no confidence motion had been tabled by the opposition. Consequently, a meeting by the competent authority was specially convened on 26th August, 2003. THE meeting had commenced at the appointed time and the Block Development Officer, the competent authority, had presided over the meeting. THE notified strength of members of the Panchayat was 13. Twelve of them were present. Discussions had been held and the motion was put to vote thereafter. One of the members of the Panchayat had abstained from voting. 7 votes were recorded in support of the motion and 4 against. As prescribed by the statute, it was open voting. THE minutes of the meeting shows that after the voting the Block Development Officer declared that the resolution had been lost. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the meeting concluded by 12. 30 p. M. He had signed the minutes.

(3.) THE Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission has made available the original of Ext. P2 proceedings in a sealed cover. It is evident that substantially the transaction of business, that had been carried out on the relevant date, was as stated by the petitioners in the Writ petition. THE first respondent has recorded in the minutes as following: Since the notified strength is 13 and its half 61/2 which has to be considered as 7 and since the majority is to be obtained by adding one more, since there is no majority of eight vis-a-vis the sanctioned strength, the motion is declared as defeated. However, persons who supported the motion, protested against the decision. THE meeting concluded by 12. 30 P. M.