K AMBILI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was elected as President of the Panthalam Thekkekara Grama Panchayat. The Presidentship of the Panchayat is exclusively reserved for women belonging to Scheduled Caste.

(2.) A resolution was moved on 20.6.1996 by the third respondent expressing no-confidence on the petitioner. The motion of no-confidence was taken up for debate on 20.6.1996. In the meeting all the 9 members participated. After the debate when voting was taken up, it was found that 5 members had voted in favour of the no-confidence motion and 4 members against the motion. This is clear from Ext P2. Ext. P2 states that the no-confidence motion was passed. According to the petitioner, the statement in Ext P2 the no-confidence was passed is not correct. Hence, the present original petition has been filed challenging Ext. P2 and to declare that the no-confidence motion is not one carried out in accordance with S.157(12) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and for other reliefs. The contention of the petitioner is that under S.157(12) of the Act, a no-confidence motion is said to be passed only if it has got the support of more than one half of the elected members present at the meeting. In this case, all the 9 members of the Panchayat were present while 5 members voted for the motion and 4 members voted against the motion. The contention of the petitioner is that half of 9 is 41/2. But, there cannot be 4 1/2 members. So, it has to be corrected as 5. More than 5 is 6 members. Since the motion is not supported by 6 members, it is not correct to say that the motion was passed. The petitioner had also taken another contention that the office of the President of the fourth respondent Panchayat is reserved for woman candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste. Since she is the only candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste in the Panchayat even if, the no-confidence motion is said to be passed, she has to be elected again as the President of the Panchayat.

(3.) On behalf of the first and third respondents counter affidavits have been filed. According to the counter affidavits, Ext. P2 resolution is in accordance with S.157(12) of the Act. The contention of the respondent is that when 5 members voted for the motion, the motion is passed in accordance with S.157(12) of the Act.