SHEEJA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings of the first respondent. The petitioner is the Vice President of the third respondent Grama Panchayat. A no confidence motion was moved against her on 12.8.2013. A meeting was convened by the first respondent for considering the no confidence motion on 27.8.2013. According to the petitioner, the motion was read over and was declared open for debate. The members present declared that the no confidence motion was unanimously approved. Accordingly, the second respondent who was presiding over the meeting declared that the motion had been passed. Thereafter, nine members of the opposition came into the hall, restrained the second respondent and demanded that the meeting be convened. The opposition members snatched the minutes book, tore off the pages of the book and disrupted the meeting. The second respondent reported the matter to the first respondent. It was found by the first respondent that the no confidence motion had not been passed in accordance with the procedure stipulated by Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the 'Act' for short). This is for the reason that the members present had not cast their votes by means of an open ballot. In view of the above as per Ext.P1 proceedings, another meeting has been convened on 12.9.2013.

(2.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 by pointing out that the first respondent has no power to issue the same. As per Section 157(3) a meeting to discuss a no confidence motion has to be conducted within 15 working days of the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to the concerned authority. That was not done. It is also pointed out that in view of Section 157(13) no fresh motion is permissible to be moved until the expiry of a period of six months. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate orders quashing Ext.P1 and a consequential direction that no fresh no confidence motion be moved until the expiry of the six months period stipulated by the statutory provision.

(3.) Adv.Murali Purushothaman appears for respondents 1 and 2. According to the counsel, the meeting that was convened for the purpose of discussing the no confidence motion could not be conducted in a peaceful atmosphere. The second respondent who was presiding over the meeting had also committed a mistake by adopting the procedure of a voice vote when the statutory provision stipulates only an open ballot. The pandemonium that subsequently broke out prevented the proceedings from being completed. In the said circumstances, the only option left was to convene a fresh meeting to discuss the no confidence motion. It was for the said purpose that Ext.P1 has been issued. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court to contend that, in similar circumstances, a direction identical to Ext.P1 had been found to be justified. For the above reasons, it is contended that there is no infirmity with Ext.P1.