(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether a Notification under S. 3 (1) (d) of the Kerala panchayats Act, 32 of 1960, for short the Act, cancelling a Notification creating a Panchayat area can be sustained where the show cause notice issued to the Panchayat under the proviso to S. 3 (1) was only against the exclusion of a certain area from the Panchayat. But the fate of this original petition defends upon the question whether this original petition filed by the President of the Administrative Committee of the Panchayat on the basis of a resolution passed after the Notification cancelling the Notification by which the panchayat was created came into effect, is maintainable.
(2.) THE Vazhathope Panchayat on 27--21975 passed a resolution recommending to the Government for the exclusion of Ward No. 4 of the Panchayat from the Panchayat and for the formation of a separate Panchayat for that area. THE recommendation was accepted and the 1st respondent-State issued Ext P-1 show cause notice under S. 3 (1) proviso of the Act to the panchayat calling for their objections and suggestions why Ward No. 4 cannot be excluded from the Vazhathope Panchayat. THE Panchayat informed the 1st respondent that they have no objections against the exclusion of Ward No 4. THEre upon, the 1st respondent issued Ext. P-2 Notifications. By the first notification, the 1st respondent cancelled the Notification creating the panchayat area for the Vazhathope Panchayat under S. 3 (1) (d) of the Act. By the second Notification, two separate Panchayats by name Vazhathope and idikki-Kanjikkuzhi were created. By yet another Notification, Administrative committees were appointed for the two newly created Panchayats under S. 13 (1) (a)of the Act. THE petitioner questions Ext P-2 Notifications, mainly the notification cancelling the Notification creating Vazhathope Panchayat area and also the Notification appointing a new Administrative Committee for the vazhathope Panchayat.
(3.) BUT the further question is whether this original petition filed by the 'president' of the Vazhathope Panchayat is maintainable. No doubt, a Panchayat can authorise its President to file an original petition on behalf of the Panchayat. BUT the question is whether the Vazhathope panchayat, as it was originally constituted in 1969, and its Administrative committee were in existence when Ext. P-3 resolution was passed on 14 61976. Admittedly, Notification No. 1 in Ext. P-2 under S. 3 (1) (d) dated 7-6-1976, by which the Notification creating the Panchayat area for the Vazhathope Panchayat was cancelled, came into force on 10-6-1976. As per S. 3 (2) of the Act, the erstwhile Vazhathope Panchayat and its Administrative Committee ceased to exist on 10-6-1976. This original petition has been filed on 14-6-1976. There is no whisper in this original petition that the petitioner has filed this original petition on behalf of the erstwhile Vazhathope Panchayat. The petitioner's case now is that the original petition has been filed on the strength of Ext. P 3 resolution adopted by the Panchayat. BUT on 14 61976 when the resolution was adopted, the Panchayat and its Administrative Committee have ceased to exist in view of the Notification dated 7 61976 referred to above. If that be so, there can be no authorisation and the petitioner cannot file this original petition on behalf of the Panchayat. Notification No. 1 in Ext. P2 cancelling the notification creating the Panchayat area for the Vazhathope Panchayat even though it is in contravention of the proviso to S. 3 (1) of the Act is only voidable and not void. In that case, only the Panchayat can question that notification. So, this original petition filed by the former President of the administrative Committee without a valid authorisation from the Administrative committee of the Panchayat is not maintainable as the petitioner by himself cannot have any locus standi. In coming to this conclusion I am fortified by a bench decision of this Court in Mohammed Haji v. Unni Moyi (1976 KLT. 106 ).