JACOB ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PAYYAVOOR Grama Panchayat has 10 elected members, the six petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 in this Original Petition. Petitioners gave notice on 18. 8. 1998 for no confidence motion against the 4th respondent, the president of the Panchayat. The 2nd respondent, Deputy Director of Panchayat, issued notice for convening a meeting of elected Panchayat members on 1. 9. 1998 at 11 a. m. at the PAYYAVOOR Grama Panchayat Office. The petitioners could not attend the meeting in view of the obstruction created by supporters of the 4th respondent in front of the Panchayat Office. Respondents 4 to 7 were present. 2nd respondent dissolved the meeting on the ground of lack of quorum, thus, barring a fresh no confidence motion for a period of six months. The question that arises for consideration is whether, under the provisions of sub-s. (6) of s. 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the 2nd respondent was obliged to adjourn the meeting in the circumstances under which the petitioners were disabled from attending the meeting. A learned Single Judge of this Court, who heard the original petition, took the view that interpretation of the provisions of sub-s. (6) of S. 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 arising in this case, is a question of substantial importance which requires consideration by a Larger Bench. Thus the matter is before us.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they had given notice for no confidence motion against the 4th respondent on 18. 8. 1998 and the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P1 notice dated 19. 8. 1998 for convening a meeting of elected members on 1. 9. 1998 at 11 a. m. at the Payyavoor Grama Panchayat Office. Respondents 4 to 6 are members of Communist Party of India (Marxist ). 7th respondent is an independent member and supports C. P. I. (M ). It is alleged that pursuant to the motion for no-confidence, the petitioners had threat to their life and they apprehended that 4th respondent, who is a local leader of c. P. I. (M) and is having much political influence, would obstruct them from attending the meeting on 1. 9. 1998. They, therefore, filed O. P. No. 16716/98 before this Court for police protection for their life and also for attending the meeting of the Panchayat to be held on 1. 9. 1998. This Court, by Ext. P2 order dated 27. 8. 199 8, directed respondents 1, 8 and 9 in this Original petition, who are respondents 1 to 3 therein, to afford necessary and adequate protection to the life of the petitioners and also for attending the Panchayat meeting to be convened on 1. 9. 1998. In spite of the above order, petitioners could not attend the meeting on 1. 9. 1998 in view of the obstruction created by the C. P. I. (M) workers in front of the Panchayat Office.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioners is that the effective obstruction created by the supporters of the opposite side disabling the petitioners from attending the meeting was a reason beyond human control obliging the 2nd respondent to adjourn the meeting. Learned counsel conferred to the meaning of the term 'beyond human control' in Words and Phrases. Vol. V. Permanent Edition as follows: "the term "beyond human control" in employer and union contract providing that employees should suffer no loss of pay for interruption of work except when caused by conditions "beyond human control" meant beyond control of employer rather than beyond control of any human being". Reference was also made to the meaning of the word 'beyond control' in the same publication which reads as follows: "under a railroad's contract to construct and put in operation a road from a timber tract to a main line junction, the provision unless prevented by other "cause beyond its control", did not refer only to a cause which was an "act of God", that term meaning a happening due directly and exclusively to a natural cause or causes in no sense attributable to human agencies, which could not be resisted or prevented by the exercise of such foresight, prudence, and care as the situation might have called into exercise; but the provision was synonymous with "unavoidably prevented", the words "beyond control" implying a pledge to exercise human agency to the point of excluding negligence, so that unanticipated trouble and delay encountered in a cut by reason of a peculiar mud or clay called "gumbo" much harder to remove than rock entitled the railroad to 30 days' additional time to finish construction. " It was then contended that the term 'except for reasons beyond human control' used in sub-s. (6) cannot be understood as an 'act of God'. Referring to the meaning of the term 'act of God' as given in B lack's Law dictionary, V Edition, Page 31, learned counsel submits that 'act of God' excludes the concept of human control. THE term 'convened' has the meaning as per Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 'to cause to come together'. THE petitioners could not come together at the appointed time, at the appointed venue of the meeting due to the obstruction created by the opposite side in front of the panchayat Office. THE 2nd respondent was aware of the tense situation prevailing in the locality. He has been intimated by representations by the petitioners as well as by Shri. K. C. Joseph M. L. A. that efforts are being made to frustrate the meeting proposed to be held on 1. 9. 1998 by obstructing the deputy Director and other officers and members of the Panchayat from attending the meeting and therefore, necessary steps should be taken for police protection. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent himself came to the venue of the meeting with police protection. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that under these circumstances, the 2nd respondent cannot the heard to contend that since the petitioners were disabled to attend the meeting not due to any Act of God, there is no obligation on his part to adjourn the meeting in view of the provisions contained under sub-s. (6 ). THE situation was such that neither the petitioners nor the 2nd respondent could do anything by which the petitioners were enabled to attend the meeting at 11 o'clock. Such situation, according to learned counsel, would come within the term 'reasons beyond human control' mentioned in sub-s. (6 ).