SATHEESH CHATHENKERY Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is Vice President of the Peringara Grama Panchayat in Pathanamthitta District, impugns Ext. P1 notice issued by the first respondent who is the authorised Officer of the State Election Commission, informing that the Panchayat proposes to consider the no confidence motion which is proposed against the petitioner by the 6th respondent and supported by the 5th respondent. The petitioner points out that against the President of the Panchayat also there was a no confidence motion which was proposed by the 5th respondent and supported by the 6th respondent. Under Ext. P1 it is stated that the meeting for considering the no confidence motion which is proposed against Smt. Arundhathi Ashok, the President of the Panchayat will be taken up at 11 a.m., on 19/03/2007. But the notice insofar as it relates to the no confidence motion against the petitioner who is Vice President it is stated that the same will be taken up only after the proceedings are completed on the no confidence motion regarding the President. The petitioner contends that Ext. P1 is bad. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing Ext. P1 notice insofar as it relates to the consideration of the no confidence motion against him the Vice President.

(2.) Taking notice on behalf of the Election Commission, Mr. Murali Purushothaman, the learned Standing Counsel has filed a detailed statement. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and 6 of the state are relevant and I quote them as follows:

(3.) Sri. Joseph George, the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the basis of the grounds raised in the writ petition. Sri. Murali Purushothaman submits that instructions are being issued to the first respondent immediately, directing him to issue fresh notice to the members of the Panchayat for convening a meeting for considering the motion of no confidence against the Vice President based on the notice of intention to move the motion already received by the authorised officer on 07/03/2007, as if the authorized officer has received the notice of intimation to move the motion only on the date on which he receives instructions from the Election Commission in this regard.