JOSEPH THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the President of the Naranammoozhi grama Panchayat. While he was functioning as the President, a no-confidence motion was tabled against him by the Panchayat Committee held on 15. 7. 1996. It was presided over by the second respondent, the Deputy Director of Panchayat, pathanamthitta District. Out of the total number of 9 members, 5 members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. Accordingly, the second respondent declared that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was carried. Ext. P3 is the copy of the minutes of the Panchayat Committee held on 15. 7. 1996. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext. P1 minutes of the meeting and prays for consequential reliefs.

(2.) IN C. M. P. No. 20046 of 1996, this Court has initially stayed the operation of Ext. P1 minutes declaring that the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was passed. A final order was passed therein on 30th september, 1996 vacating the said interim order. As against the said interim order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1469 of 1996. The Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed by this Court in C. M. P. No. 20046 of 1996. However, it directed to dispose of the writ petition itself at the earliest. That is how this matter is coming up before this Court for the final disposal of the writ petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 8 submitted that what this Court has considered in Ambili's case supra, was the unamended provision contained in sub-s. (12) of S. 157. Sub-s. (12) was amended by Act 7 of 1995 and the amended provision is as follows: "if the motion is carried with the support of more than one-half of the sanctioned strength on that Panchayat the Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, remove the President, Vice-President or the Chairman of the Standing Committee, as the case may be". What is relevant in this amended provision is the words 'more than one-half of the sanctioned strength'. In the present case, one-half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat would be tour and half and more than four and half would be five. Thus the distinction between the provisions contained in sub-s. (12) as unamendsd and as amended by Act 7 of 1995 is crystalline. THErefore, in a Panchayat having a strength of 9 elected members, 5 members will constitute more than one-half of the sanctioned strength. That the interpretation that one half of the sanctioned strength in the facts of this case would be five and more than five would be six, will no doubt' do violence to the legislative purpose. After the amendment, the object of the provision is made unambiguous and certain. In this context, it must be recalled what the Supreme Court said in THE New Piece Goods, Bazaar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1950 SC 165 ). "it is elementary that the primary duty of a court is to give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the words used by it and no outside consideration can be called in aid to find that intention".