MINI DIVAKARAN Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is stated to have been elected as a member of the Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat from Ward No.19 in the election held in the year 2014. She was elected thereafter as Vice President in November, 2015, by majority of the members of the Panchayat. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notices that were served on her, stating that a no confidence motion was proposed to be moved by the majority of the members of the Panchayat against her. Copies of the notice stated to have been served by the members of the Panchayat on the authorised officer, and the notice containing the motion proposed that was served on the petitioner, are produced in the writ petition as Exts.P1 and P2, and are impugned therein. The main ground urged by the learned senior counsel at the time of hearing is that, the notices served by the members of the Panchayat on the authorised officer do not satisfy the requirements of Section 157 of the Panchayat Raj Act, in that, while it may be that the notice contemplated under Section 157(2) was in fact served on the Secretary of the Block Panchayat, who is the Officer authorised by the State Election Commission for the purposes of Section 157, in person, the notice that was delivered to the said authorised Officer was addressed to the Block Development Officer, and not to the Secretary of the Block Panchayat. It is stated, therefore, that the defect in the notice is such as would vitiate the notice itself, it being not in accordance with the statutory provisions. The learned senior counsel would also refer to the notice that was sent to the petitioner by registered post, as contemplated under Section 157(4) of the Act, and state that the said notice was sent by the Secretary of the Block Panchayat and hence, if the Secretary of the Block Panchayat is indeed the authorised Officer, the notice under Section 157(2) of the Act also should have been addressed to him.

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent as also by the 3rd and 15th respondents. The said respondents would justify the service of notice under Section 157, on the ground that, the Secretary of the Block Panchayat used to function as the Block Development Officer also. It was under these circumstances, that the notice under Section 157(2) was addressed to the Block Development Officer since the said person was also the Secretary of the Block Panchayat who was the Officer authorised by the State Election Commission for the purposes of Section 157. Alternatively, it is contended that even if there was technical mistake in addressing the notice to a wrong authority, Section 157(2) contemplates a delivery in person of the notice therein to the Officer authorised by the State Election Commission, and the said requirement should satisfied in the instant case with a delivery of the notice to the authorised Officer itself.

(3.) I have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ramkumar appearing the for the petitioner and Sri. Murali Purushothaman, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Smt. C.G. Bindu, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents. I have also heard Sri. Ajith Prakash, the learned counsel for the other party respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that, Section 157(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act r/w Rule 15(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meetings) Rules, 1995, which specifies that, the notice under Section 157(2) shall be in the form appended to those rules, the notice must necessarily be in the form prescribed. I find that, in the form appended to the rules, there is a provision made for mentioning the Official name and address of the empowered officer, as the person to whom the notice under Section 157(2) is to be addressed. In the instant cases, the notice under Section 157 (2) was addressed to the "Block Development Officer, Mulanthuruthy Block, Ernakulam District" and delivered by hand to "The Secretary, Mulanthuruthy Block Panchayat". Thus it was a case where a notice addressed to a wrong person was delivered to the correct person. In my view, notwithstanding the delivery to the authorised officer, the notice that was delivered in person to him cannot be said to be one that was in the manner prescribed, since the notice itself was addressed to a person other than the authorised Officer. In my view, the said defect is sufficient to vitiate the notice itself more so in election related matters, where the procedural provisions have to be strictly construed. I am therefore inclined to hold that the notices that are impugned in the writ petition cannot be deemed sufficient for the purposes of Section 157 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Further, in view of the finding on the said issue, I do not deem it necessary to go into the other issues raised in the writ petition, which are left open to be decided in an appropriate case. The writ petition is allowed, by quashing Exts.P1 and P2 notices and all steps taken pursuant thereto, making it clear however, that nothing contained in this judgment shall stand in the way of the respondents issuing a fresh notice in compliance with Section 157 of the Panchayat Raj Act. The writ petition is disposed as above.