MOHAMMED HAJI Vs. UNNI MOYI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a member of the Kodiyathur Panchayat challenges Ext. P3 order dated 4-6-1975 whereby the Government have ordered the bifurcation of the Panchayat into two with effect from 16-6-1975. The Kodiyathur Panchayat consisted of three villages called Kumaranellur, Kakkad and Kodiyathur. The new Panchayat is to be called the Karassery Panchayat consisting of the first two villages, viz., Kumaranellur and Kakkad. The old Kodiyathur Panchayat is reduced to the area of Kodiyathur village. According to the petitioner, Ext. P3 was issued mala fide and in violation of the principle of audi alteram partem as embodied in the proviso to sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (Act 32 of 1960). The petitioner therefore seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3 and a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to refrain from dissolving the Panchayat in terms of Ext. P3.

(2.) We shall first deal with the question of mala fide. It is alleged that the 1st respondent, who was the President of the Kodiyathur Panchayat prior to Ext. P3, is a close relative of the Minister for Local Administration, the 4th respondent in this petition. The Minister and the 1st respondent belong to the official group of the Muslim League whereas the petitioner belongs to the rebel group of the Muslim League. As a result of the rivalry between these two groups of the Muslim League, the relationship between the 1st respondent on the one hand and the petitioner and his supporters on the other has become strained. The petitioner and two other persons belonging to the rival group supported by three other members of the Panchayat had issued Ext. P1 notice dated 27-5-1975 of intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the first respondent as President of the Kodiyathur Panchayat. Pursuant to this, Ext. P2 notice dated 30-5-1975 was issued by the 2nd respondent, the District Panchayat Officer, Calicut, giving notice that a meeting of the Panchayat would be held at 3 p.m. on 23-6 1975 at the Panchayat office for considering Ext. P1 motion. While matters stood thus, Ext. P3 dated 4-6-1975 was issued by the Government ordering the bifurcation of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, Ext. P3 was issued at the instance of the 1st respondent who has the support of the Minister. Ext. P3 was issued by the Government under orders of the Minister for the purpose of salvaging the 1st respondent from being removed from his office of President of the Panchayat as a result of the proposed no-confidence motion. This is pointed out by the petitioner as political machination with a view to furthering the interest of the official group of the Muslim League.

(3.) In answer to these allegations the 5th respondent, the State of Kerala, says in its affidavit dated 20-6-1975 that the decision to bifurcate the Panchayat was taken on the basis of a resolution passed by the Panchayat as early as 5-2-1972, and the subsequent resolutions and representations of the Panchayat, requesting the Government to bifurcate the Panchayat into two. The Panchayat was originally created by the Government by notification No. G.O. MS. 196/61/DD dated 23-12-1961. The Panchayat comprising three villages, covering an area of 36 1/2sq. miles with a population of 35,600, and residential houses numbering 7000, was found to be too large and unwieldy for efficient administration Owing to this fact and also the popular demand for the division of the Panchayat, the Government ordered bifurcation of the Panchayat as early as 12-12-1972. However, this order had to be kept in abeyance as the Election Commission of India had directed that Panchayats in existence as on 1-1-1973 should be taken into account for purposes of delimiting the Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies in the State on the basis of the 1971 census. It was therefore decided by the Government that bifurcation of the Panchayat was to await the completion of the delimitation work. When this decision to keep in abeyance the order of bifurcation was taken, all necessary steps for dividing the Panchayat into two had already been completed by the Government as shown in letter No. EL (1) 45891/72 dated 16-5 1973 sent by the Director of Panchayats to the Government. As soon as the delimitation work was completed, the question of bifurcation was again taken up by the Government. The Panchayat made a further representation to the Government on 20 8 1974 drawing its attention to the earlier resolutions and representations requesting for the division of the Panchayat and to the difficulties caused to the public on account of the delay in giving effect to the order of bifurcation. A month later, the Government received a letter from the President of the Panchayat again referring to these resolutions and representations. In view of all this, the Government ordered the bifurcation of the Panchayat on 21-5-1975, on which date Ext. P1 notice of intention to move the no confidence motion had not been issued by the petitioner and his supporters. The Government was not aware of any such intention. Ext. P3 notification cancelling the earlier notification of 28-12-1961, whereby the Kodiyathur Panchayat was originally constituted, and bifurcating the Panchayat into two Panchayats, was issued by the Government without any knowledge of either Ext P1 or Ext. P2. The allegations of mala fides and political motivations are totally denied by the State. The 4th respondent who is the Minister for Local Administration has also filed an affidavit dated 19-5-1975 denying the various allegations made against him personally. He denies that the 1st respondent is related to him. The allegation that the 1st respondent met him in Trivandrum subsequent to Ext. P1 notice is untrue. He did not meet the 1st respondent on any day between 27-5-1975 which is the date of Ext. P1 and 4-6-1975 which is the date of Ext. P3 notification. He has denied that Ext. P3 was issued by the Government with a view to furthering the interest of the 1st respondent or the Muslim League official group or for any other extraneous considerations. The Minister was not aware of the no confidence motion or the meeting proposed to be convened on 23-6-197 . The political and personal considerations alleged in the petition are totally denied in his affidavit. He points out that the decision to bifurcate the Panchayat was taken by the Government strictly for reasons of administrative efficiency and in deference to popular demand. But the implementation of the decision had to be delayed on account of the delimitation of the Assembly and Parliamentary Constituencies in the State which was in progress. The 1st respondent also has filed a counter affidavit dated 18-6-1975 denying the allegations made against him personally.