THOMAS Vs. DAVID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition raises an important question viz. whether a member of a Municipal Council elected by the people can be suspected for a period of six months from the Municipal Council invoking the power under S .48(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act The petitioner also seeks for a declaration to declare sub-s. (3) of S.38 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', as violative of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner is a Councilor of Angamally Municipality elected from Ward No. VII in the year 1995 for the term of five years. The Council consists of 24 members and their party strength as at present is shared equally 12:12 by LDF and UDF. The attempt of UDF to move no confidence motion against the Chairperson of the Council could not succeed twice during the year 1997. Thus there is a strong and effective opposition to the functioning of the ruling front in the Municipal Council. The present problem arose in the special meeting held on 24.7.1998.

(3.) As per notice dated 18.7.1998 (Ext. P4) a special meeting of the Municipal Council was proposed on 24.7.1998 at 11 a.m. for electing members for the three Standing Committees. However, by notice dated 21.7.1998 (Ext. P5) the election to the Standing Committee for Taxation and Finance was removed from the agenda on the ground that the term of the said Committee continues till 30.7.1998. On 24.7.1998 when the members assembled at the Council hall for meeting, one of the Councilors Smt. Mercy Varghese belonging to the opposition was not permitted to sign the attendance register or to attend to the meeting on the plea that she was late. Besides the election to all the three Standing Committees including the one adjourned were proposed in the same meeting. Both these were resented by the opposition members including the petitioner by raising a point of order. Thereafter it is alleged that the Chairperson, 1st respondent herein, walked out dispersing the meeting and threatening the petitioner that he will teach the petitioner a lesson and that he will be suspended. On the same day the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice suspending the petitioner from the Municipal Council for a period of six months in exercise of his power under S.38(3) of the Act and R.7(4) of the Kerala Municipalities (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995. The Original Petition is filed challenging the order of suspension and for a declaration.