VAHEED Vs. SIVANKULLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the Councillor of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. He was elected from Ward No. 14 of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation during the election conducted in September 1995. The first respondent is the Chairperson (Mayor) of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. According to the petitioner, ever since the first respondent became the Mayor, he started mis-using powers and when his conduct and style of functioning became intolerable, petitioner decided to move a no-confidence motion against the first respondent Accordingly, petitioner moved a no-confidence motion in the form of a resolution in accordance with S.19(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The sanctioned strength of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation is 50. A resolution expressing no-confidence against the first respondent was included in the agenda of the council which held its meeting on 27.7.1996 at the Council Hall, Thiruvananthapuram. The meeting was presided over by the 2nd respondent who was the Chairman of the Standing Committee in accordance with sub clause 4(c) of S.19 of the Act. After a debate of about 4 hours, the 2nd respondent decided to put the motion to vote. When voting commenced, only 24 members out of 50 persons cast their votes supporting the motion of no-confidence. Two members declared that they would not participate in the voting. The other 24 members abstained from voting in accordance with the party whip. When the ballot papers were counted, it was found that only 24 members voted in support of the no-confidence motion. As a result, the 2nd respondent vide Ext. P1 declared that the motion has failed since it is not supported by more than half of the sanctioned strength of the councillors.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the decision of the 2nd respondent as reflected in Ext. P1 is arbitrary in so far as it says that the resolution is not carried with the support of more than one half of the total strength of the council which he arrived at by looking into the 24 votes cast by the members in support of the resolution. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of any opposition to the motion of no-confidence by any councillors of the Municipality, the second respondent "should have declared the resolution passed unanimously". It is further contended that passing of the resolution without conducting a secret ballot "compelling the entire strength to vote" is illegal in view of S.19(9) of the Act. It was also canvassed that the issuance of party whip has vitiated the result of the motion of no-confidence.