KUNHAMMED HAJI Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER TRIPRANGOTTUR PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O.P. No. 5932/82 is the appellant in W.A. No. 733/82, that being an appeal against the judgment in O.P. No. 8775/82. We will first deal with OP. No. 5932/82. The petitioner was the President of the Triprangottoor Panchayat coming within the jurisdiction of the District Panchayat Officer, Cannanore, who is the 2nd respondent in the Original Petition. There are 9 members in the Panchayat Board. 8 of the members presented a resolution to the District Panchayat Officer, Cannanore expressing want of confidence in the President of the Panchayat, the petitioner. The District Panchayat Officer thereupon issued a notice dated 2-4-1982 informing that the motion of no - confidence would be taken up for consideration at the meeting convened to be held on 23-4-1982. Pursuant to the notice the meeting was held on 23-4-1982 presided over by the District Panchayat Officer. Of the 7 members present one is said to have opposed the resolution and 6 voted in favour of the resolution. Consequently the 2nd respondent, the District Panchayat Officer declared that the motion expressing want of confidence in the President of the Panchayat was passed. Ext. P3 is the minutes of the proceedings as recorded in the minute book.

(2.) Thereupon the petitioner came to this Court in O.P. No. 3100/82. In view of the decision reported in Gopalakrishnan v. Executive Officer ( 1981 KLT 508 ) this Court allowed the Writ Petition. The decision in Gopalakrishnan v. Executive Officer (1981 KLT 508) is on the basis that in SRO. 294/64 which was relied on in that case there was empowering of the District Panchayat Officer to receive the written notice of intention to make the motion of no - confidence in the President, but there is no power in the District Panchayat Officer to convene meeting in exercise of the powers under sub-s.(3) of S.54 of the Act. In this view the writ petition was allowed quashing the proceedings. All the same the Court specifically permitted proceedings pursuant to the resolution to be continued. Subsequent to that judgment the District Panchayat Officer issued a fresh notice dated 21-7-1982 convening a meeting for the consideration of the notice of intention. Copies of the notice dated 21-7-1982 is before us as Ext. P4. It is thereupon that the petitioner came to this Court challenging the above said notice Ext. P4 issued for consideration of the no - confidence motion. The ground taken by the petitioner and urged before us in the Original Petition is that the District Panchayat Officer is not competent to issue a notice of motion as he is not authorised to do so. Ext. P5 produced in this petition which is said to be an authorisation under S.54(3) is challenged as not competent, for, according to the petitioner the authorisation must be in individual cases after receipt of the motion of no - confidence. It is therefore said that the proceedings taken by the District Panchayat Officer must be held to be invalid.

(3.) Subsequently in the Original Petition the petitioner moved for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice for convening the meeting to consider the no - confidence motion. This Court was not inclined to grant stay as such. On 11-8-1982 a learned judge of this Court passed an interim direction that: