ALICEKUTTY Vs. KADAMBAZHIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original petition raises questions of importance. Petitioner is an elected member of the first respondent - Kadambazhippuram grama Panchayat. Petitioner was elected to the Panchayat in the election conducted on 23rd September 1995. There are eleven members in the first respondent-Panchayat. Under S. 162 of the Kerala Panchayatraj Act, each panchayat should have a standing committee. So far as the first respondent-Panchayat is concerned, the standing committee is to be constituted for assessment of tax, finance, accounts and planning. Under S. 162 (2) of the kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act) every standing committee shall consist of members elected by the elected members of the panchayat from among themselves through proportional representation by a single transferable vote. There is a proviso, which says that such members shall not-be less than three or exceed five. By sub-s. (3) of S. 162 of the Act, president and Vice-President are made members of the standing committee by virtue of their office. Of the elected members, one seat is reserved for scheduled Caste and one for women.

(2.) FIRST respondent-Panchayat's standing committee is to consist of five elected members of which one should be woman. Thus, three persons are to be elected from the general seat, one from the scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and one from the ladies. Second respondent was the returning Officer for the purpose of conduct of election to the standing committee. Meeting was called on 15. 1. 1996. There were four contestants for the three general seats; one for SC/st and two for the ladies" (petitioner and the third respondent ). One of the contestants for the general seat withdrew his nomination. On 15. 1. 1996 the Returning Officer declared as elected the three persons, who had filed their nominations from the general seats and one from the SC/st seat. According to the Returning Officer, election was to be conducted only for the seat reserved for women. He issued Ext. P1 declaring that the persons, who have been elected unopposed, cannot exercise their right to vote with, regard to the election of lady member to the standing committee. Original Petition was filed challenging Ext. P1. But on the basis of Ext. P1, election was held and the third respondent was declared to be elected to the standing committee to represent the ladies. Thereafter, Original Petition was amended by filing Ext. P2, which declared the third respondent as elected. Original Petition as amended challenges Ext. P1 as well as Ext. P2 declaring the third respondent elected.

(3.) REGARDING the contention that alternate remedy is available, this court has held in various cases that the mere existence of an alternate remedy does not prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In the decision reported in sreekanla Bhasi v. University of Kerala - 1996 (1) KLT 626 - a Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "it is not an invariable rule that whenever there is an alternate remedy, this Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of patent illegalities and lack of jurisdiction, this Court would exercise its jurisdiction under art. 226of the Constitution of India and will not relegate the parties to the alternate remedies. The alternate remedy has not stood as a bar when this Court found that the acceptance or rejection of the nomination was illegal". Further, the alternate remedy suggested is not efficacious and it is doubtful whether it can be made use of for setting aside election of a member to the standing committee.