JERRY MATHEW SAM Vs. ELANTHOOR BLOCK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The member representing Division No.1 of Elanthoor Block Panchayat, owing allegiance to the United Democratic Front has filed this Writ Petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2, viz., the Elanthoor Block Panchayat represented by its Secretary and the President of the Block Panchayat, to reconstitute the number of members to the various Standing Committees, based on Ext.P1 circular and the directions contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court. Respondent No.3 is the State and respondent No.4 is the Assistant Development Commissioner (General), Collectorate, Pathanamthitta.

(2.) It is obligatory under Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Standing Committee Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") that the Panchayat in its first meeting convened after its constitution or re-constitution, after electing the President, shall determine the number of members under Section 162(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") each Standing Committee shall contain. Under Ext.P5 minutes dated 29.12.2006, the Panchayat resolved to have the number of members to each Standing Committee [Standing Committee (Finance), Standing Committee (Development) and Standing Committee (Welfare)] excluding the President and including the Vice President as Chairman of the Standing Committee for Finance, as 5, 3, 3. The members owing allegiance to the United Democratic Front including the writ petitioner objected on the ground that equality is not maintained. But the Panchayat decided to exclude the President and the Vice President while determining the number of members to be elected to the various standing committees. In the meanwhile, the Government issued Ext.P1 circular which was followed by Ext.P2 notice of the 4th respondent. Ext.P2 notice specifically directs the 1st respondent to regulate the number of members in the Standing Committees only as per Ext.P1 circular. The 2nd respondent-President of the Block Panchayat approached this Court filing W.P.(C)No.30845 of 2005 challenging clause 6 of Ext.P1 circular. That Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by Ext.P3 judgment.

(3.) The grounds raised in this Writ Petition and the contentions raised by respondents 1 and 2 all revolve round Ext.P3 judgment by which this Court considered the vires of clause 6 of Ext.P1 circular with reference to Section 162(2) of the Act. For deciding this case, it will be necessary to go through Ext.P3 judgment in detail, and to appreciate the judgment it will be useful to extract Section 162(2) of the Act which reads as follows:- "Every standing committee shall consist of such number of members, including its chairman as decided by the Panchayat, so that all other elected members except the President and Vice President shall be elected as a member in any of the standing committee and the number of members elected to each standing committee shall, as far as possible, be equal." This Court found that Section 162(2) consists of three parts and noticed that the first limb of the sub-section provides that in reckoning the number of members to be fixed by the Panchayat, it shall include the Vice President also. This Court noticed further that the second part provides that every elected member other than the President and Vice President shall be a member of one of the Standing Committees. Lastly this Court noticed that the sub-section provides that the number of members elected to each Standing Committee shall, as far as possible, be equal. This Court actually agreed with the contention of the petitioner therein that the provision contemplates equality, as far as possible, in relation to the number of members elected to the Standing Committees and that this number of members elected will not take in the President or the Vice President. Significantly, this Court accepted the contention of the petitioner in that case that the expressions "elected members" and "members elected" are different and that the latter does not include President or the Vice President. After noticing that Section 162(2) provides that equality should be maintained as far as possible among the members elected, this Court reiterated in para.12 of the judgment which is reported in George Varghese v. State of Kerala (2006 (4) KLT 452) that in considering equality, the Vice President is outside the zone of consideration. Even though it would appear from Ext.P3 that the Writ Petition has failed and is stated to be dismissed, this Court in Ext.P3 has declared that Clause 6 of Ext.P1 circular is ultra vires Section 162(2) to the extent it directs that it predicates equality even by including the Vice President. Such a declaration is also given in para.14 of the judgment. In fact, considering the situation which actually obtains in the 1st respondent Panchayat, this Court even concluded at para.13 of the judgment that