PARAMESWARAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Secretary of Poruthassery Panchayat. Fourth respondent is the Poruthassery Panchayat Committee. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 which is an order passed by the Director of Panchayats transferring him from the Poruthassery Grama Panchayat on the basis of Resolution No. 1 passed by it on 18.12.2004, under Section 179(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that though Section 179(4) stipulates that such a resolution can be passed only in a special meeting called for the purpose, that too, after affording him an opportunity to make a representation before the Panchayat or the President, the said statutory requirements under Section 179(4) have been flouted. In support of the said contention, reference is made to Rules 4 and 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 (for short 'the Rules'). On the basis of Rule 4, it is contended that the special meeting envisaged under Section 179(4) of the Act is not one of those meetings as would fall under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a special meeting for the purpose contemplated in Section 179(4) is not a meeting which may be called as a special meeting convened by the President under Rule 4(2) of the Rules since the meetings contemplated under Rule 4(2) are meetings convened to take an urgent decision. The facts of the case in hand would show that one of the members of the Panchayat wanted a meeting to be convened for the purpose of moving a resolution seeking transfer of the petitioner, who is the Secretary, on ground of his alleged misbehaviour to some of the members, including the President. According to the petitioner, such a request is one that would fall under Rule 6 of the Rules which provided for not less than one third of the number of members of the Panchayat requiring to convene a meeting.

(3.) Contrasting Rules 4(2) and 6 of the Rules, in my considered view, Rule 6 of the Rules concerns those meetings which the President is obliged to convene on the request by not less than one third of the number of members of the Panchayat as notified by the Government. This means, under Rule 6 there is no discretion vested with the President in that regard. He has to convene a meeting. The situations that fall under Rule 4 are matters which require urgent decision by the Panchayat. The provision in Rule 6 does not exclude the right of a member to request for an urgent meeting of the Panchayat and if the Panchayat accepts such request, it will be within the authority of the President under Rule 4 to convene such a meeting. Such a meeting will also include one to consider a resolution contemplated in Section 179(4) of the Act. So much so, I am of the view that the convening of the meeting cannot be found fault with.