E P KAMARUDDIN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was elected as a Councillor of the third respondent Municipality. He was thereafter, elected as the Vice Chairman.

(2.) On 9-12-2004, the respondent, being the officer authorised by the first respondent State Election Commission for the purpose of Section 19(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", received a written notice of the intention to make a motion expressing want of confidence in the petitioner. The second respondent issued notice convening a meeting on 20.12.2004 under Sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the Act for consideration of the motion. Petitioner filed W.P.(C). No. 36477/2004 seeking to quash the said notice on ground that it is in violation of the statutory provisions in Section 19(3) of the Act. On behalf of the second respondent herein, who was the first respondent in the said Writ Petition, it was admitted that the notice convening the meeting on 20.12.2004 was served on the petitioner only on 10.12.2004. It was held by this Court that going by the provisions in Section 19(3) of the Act, no notice as contemplated by the said provision has been issued. At that time, the learned Counsel for the second respondent herein, namely, the authorised officer under Section 19(2) of the Act, submitted before this Court that the authorised officer may be permitted to take fresh steps as provided under the Statute to convene a meeting to consider the no confidence motion. That Writ Petition was closed without any specific direction or expression of any permission as sought for on behalf of the second respondent herein. Ext.P2 is the judgment in that case.

(3.) On 17.12.2004, the second respondent, the authorised officer, issued the impugned Ext.P3 notice convening the meeting for consideration of the no confidence motion on 29.12.2004, thereby re-scheduling the meeting scheduled on 20-12-2004, to 29.12.2004. According to the petitioner, the convening of meeting on 29.12.2004 is after the period of fifteen days prescribed by Section 19(3) and is, therefore, invalid. He therefore seeks to invalidate the said meeting.