GOVT. OF KERALA Vs. GEORGE C. KAPPEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred by the Government of Kerala and the Regional Joint Director of Municipal Administration, is against the 'judgment of the learned single Judge in OP 3252 of 1993 -K dated 7 -4 -1993 wherein the learned Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 11. The Commissioner of Palai Municipality, who was the third respondent in the writ petition, is now the 12th respondent in this appeal. The Municipal Council. Palai was constituted in 1988 for a term of five years with effect from 1 -2 -1988 and the said term expired on 31 -1 -1993. The said term was extended by a notification, Ext. P1 dated 28 -1 -1993, issued by the Government under the proviso to Section 8(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)'. In fact, the said notification was a general one applying to all the Municipalities in the State and the term of all the Municipalities was extended for a period of six months from 1 -2 -1993. Pursuant to the said notification, writ petitioners (respondents 1 to 11 in this appeal) had a right to continue in Office upto 31 -7 -1993.

(2.) HOWEVER , Government issued Ext. P2 notification on 24 -2 -1993, again exercising powers under the proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act, this time confining the notification to Palai Municipality only and reducing the term to 25 -2 -1993. In other words, while all the Municipal Councils including the Palai Municipal Council had their term generally extended by six months from 1 -2 -1993, upto 31 -7 -1993 the reduction in the said extended term was effected by Ext. P2 dated 24 -2 -1993 only in respect of Palai Municipal Council thereby terminating its term which effect from 25 -2 -1993 under Ext.

(3.) IN this appeal preferred by the State and another, two contentions have been raised before us by the learned Additional Advocate General -I The first contention is that the proviso to Section 8 (1) of the Act permits the Government to reduce the term of a single Municipal Council or a group of Municipal Councils and it is not as if the said proviso which deals with extension or reduction of the term of Municipal Councils should be invariably exercised uniformly in regard to all Municipal Councils in the State. It is submitted that there may be special situations which come to the notice of the Government in relation to a particular Council or certain Municipal Councils which may necessitate either extension or reduction of the term of Municipal Council, such a situation not necessarily falling under Section 54 of the Act. Alternatively, it is contended that the impugned notification, Ext. P2, need not be quashed inasmuch as the reasons mentioned in Ext. P2 notification for reduction of the term, even if they fall under Section 54, do not necessitate any notice to the Municipal Council. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the irregularities pointed out by Ext. P2 are so grave and borne out by records and there is no chance of the Municipal Council contradicting the said allegations. It is also stated that the extended term is likely to come to an end, even as per the earlier extension, Ext. P1, on 31 -7 -1993 and therefore, it is a fit case where no interference is called for.