JOSHI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the elected President of the Payyavoor panchayat. The total strength of the Panchayat committee is 10 and the committee elected the petitioner as President in May, 1990. The 4th respondent was one of the members of the Panchayat. The 3rd respondent, the Executive officer, Payyavoor Panchayat filed a suit alleging that the 4th respondent had become disqualified to hold office as the member of the Panchayat by virtue of s. 20 (m) of the Kerala Panchayat Act. The suit was decreed. Against the trial court's judgment, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before Sub Court , Payyannur. The- appeal was dismissed. The 4th respondent later filed a writ petition challenging the decision of the Munsiff. The 4th respondent moved a no-confidence motion against the petitioner. Second respondent convened a meeting of the Panchayat for discussion of the no-confidence motion. On 8-2-94, the co-confidence motion was passed. The tenure of the Panchayats in the State including Payyavoor panchayat expired on 8th midnight. Government issued a notification replacing the existing Committees of the Panchayats by administrative committees to be effective from 9-2-94. The existing committee of the Payyavoor Panchayat will have to be continued as an administrative committee with the petitioner as the president thereof to run the administration. PETITIONER alleges that the 2nd respondent ought not have convened a meeting to consider the no-confidence motion and there shall be a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,-or direction to quash Exts. P1 and P1 (a ).

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. Notices on no-confidence motion were delivered to the District panchayat Officer on 19-1-94. Seven members signed the notices. The sanctioned strength of the Panchayat is ten. As the notices were found to be in order, the deputy Director of Panchayats, Kozhikode authorised- the District Panchayat officer to convene a meeting of the Panchayat. Notices were duly served on all the ten members on 23-1-94. Six members were present at the meeting and all the six supported the motion. Six members constituted 3/5 of the total strength of 10. A similar no-confidence motion was also passed against the Vice President at 2. 30 P. M. on 8-2-94. The 4th respondent was a signatory to the no-confidence motion. Even though the decree was passed against him by the Munsiff Court, taliparamba the same was stayed by Sub Court, Payyannur and the stay order was in force during the relevant period. The appeal filed by the 4th respondent was later dismissed by Sub Court, Payyannur on 25-1-94. The term of the Panchayat expired on 9-2-94 consequent on the notification issued by the Government.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner drew my attention to certain observations made by the Supreme Court in M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. . Union of India (A. I. R 1988 Supreme Court 782 ). The Supreme Court observed: "the words in the statute must, prima facie, be given its ordinary meaning. Where the grammatical construction is clear and manifest and without doubt, that construction ought to prevail unless these are some strong and obvious reasons to the contrary". I do not think that these observations of the Supreme court in any way help the petitioner. If ordinary and plain meanings are given to the words contained in S. 54 (13) then also the escapable conclusion is that the petitioner as President had no right to continue in office for another two days so that it will enure to his benefit when the notification was issued by the Government on 9-2-94. When the notification came into existence petitioner was not the President of the Panchayat. I see no reason to quash Ext s. P1 and p1 (a) proceedings. Original Petition is without any merit and it is dismissed. . .