MARY JOHN Vs. VALLATHOL NAGAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Original Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the same petitioner. The prayers in these petitions are to quash the orders disqualifying the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and for a declaration to declare that Section 35(k) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', to the extent of limiting the period of absence for disqualification to "if within the said period not less than three meetings have been held" is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(2.) Petitioner is a resident of Vallathol Nagar Grama Panchayath. She is a well-known social worker, professional artist and an organiser. She was elected as a member of the Panchayath from Ward No. III which was reserved for women during October, 1995 as an independent candidate. The Panchayath has 10 seats out of which six were won by the L.D.F. and the other three seats were won by candidates from BJP, Muslim League and Congress on each.

(3.) During August and September, 1997 in connection with the 50th Anniversary of Indian Independence Celebrations abroad petitioner was invited to Spain and Italy. In the last Panchayath committee meeting held on 20-8-1997 she had informed of her leaving abroad to all the members including the Panchayath Secretary. She was told by the Secretary that there is no need for any written application for seeking permission if the tour is less than three months. Therefore, the petitioner took back the application which she wanted to submit for the permission to be absent in the committee meetings for three months. She left India on 23-8-1997 and she could be back only on 2-10-1997. On coming back she was shocked to receive a letter dated 31-10-1997 informing her that she cannot continue as a member as per Section 35 of the Act. Petitioner was asked to approach the Panchayath Committee under Section 37(2) of the Act, if she is advised. She submitted a reply Ext. P7 on 5-11-1997. However, the Committee rejected the said application by Ext. P8. Petitioner challenged the orders in Exts. P6 and P8 in O.P. No. 21154 of 1997. The impugned orders were stayed in C.M.P. No. 37965/97 and she was continuing as a member. Petitioner was again to leave India in pursuance to an invitation to participate in a seminar to be held in London on 22-2-1998. This time she submitted an application dated 18-2-1998 for permission for her absence and she left India on 19-2-1998. However, on coming back to India she received a letter dated 13-4-1998 stating that she had not attended the four Panchayath Committee meetings held on 26-2-1998, 12-3-1998, 18-3-1998 and 23-3-1998 and for Panchayath Standing Committee meetings held on 26-2-1998, 10-3-1998, 16-3-1998 and 21-3-1998 and that she had automatically lost her membership of the Panchayath under Section 35(k) of the Act. Petitioner immediately submitted a representation, Ext. P8, dated 17-4-1998 to the Panchayath seeking to cancel the letter dated 13-4-1998. Petitioner filed the second O.P. No. 7861/98 seeking to quash Ext. P7 communication dated 13-4-1998 of the Special Grade Secretary of the Panchayath and for a declaration to declare that Section 35(k) of the Act to the extent stated above is arbitrary and unconstitutional.