PETER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Councillor of Kollam Municipal Corporation. He has been elected from Ward No.47. The 3rd respondent, who is an elector from Ward No.47, has filed Ext. P1 petition dated 10.12.2003 before the 2nd respondent Kerala State Election Commission under S.92(l) of the Kerala Municipality Act, alleging that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under S.91(o) of the Kerala Municipality Act. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the constitutional validity of S.91(o) of the Act. According to him, S.91(o) of the Act is unreasonable for the absence of inbuilt safeguards. The provision operates even in the absence of a culpable state of mind and therefore, it is arbitrary. According to the petitioner, though the convening of the Ward Committee is not mandatory, still, the non convening of it atleast once in six months, acts as a disqualification. It is submitted that in identical situations, no disqualification is incurred by members of Parliament and State Legislatures. It is also submitted, the Rule governing the procedure for Constitution of the Ward Committee is ultra vires of S.44(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is also contended that S.91(o) is vague and therefore, it is void. It is further contended that the provision is suffering from the vice of excessive delegation. Other contentions are also raised. On the above grounds, the petitioner seeks a declaration that S.91(o) of the Kerala Municipality Act is unconstitutional.

(2.) S.91(o) of the Kerala Municipality Act reads as follows:-

(3.) As per S.91(o) of the Act, the failure to convene the Ward Committee once in 6 months will result in loss of membership of the Municipal Council. Any dispute regarding disqualification suffered by the member of a Municipality under S.91(o) can be adjudicated by the Kerala State Election Commission under S.92. The petitioner has got a case that the petition to disqualify him has not been filed in accordance with law. It is also contended that on merits also, the petitioner is bound to succeed. I am not dealing with those contentions. The petitioner has to raise them before the State Election Commission. I am only dealing with the case of the petitioner that S.91(o) of the Kerala Municipality Act is unconstitutional. In support of the said point, the following grounds were urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner:-