GOPALAN Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, the vice president of the third respondent grama panchayat, challenges notice of a motion of no confidence against the 4th respondent, the president of that panchayat. The fundamental plea projected is that Ext. P4 motion contains a signature, as that of the 5th respondent Abdul Kalam, a member, though he is not in India. It is also pleaded that the proposed motion is vitiated by fraud.

(2.) EXT. P3 does not contain the signature of Abdul Kalam. Ext. P4 is the Malayalam version of the form referable to R. 1 5 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meetings) Rules, 1995. That form does not require the signatures therein to be attested by any authority. Ext. P3 contains a signature as that of Abdul Kalam. Ext. P5 is the English version of the form in terms of R. 15. That also carries a signature as that of Abdul Kalam in the presence of the Consulate General of India, Jeddah. Along with these materials, by now, the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, challenging the very foundation of the writ petition and even charging the petitioner of having made a false statement in relation to the 5th respondent's signature. He further seeks leave of this Court to file appropriate application to prosecute the petitioner. One thing is certain from that counter affidavit; that the 5th respondent stands by his signatures in the disputed documents. With that counter affidavit, I do not find any justification to continue the interlocutory order issued deferring the consideration of the motion.

(3.) NOW, the only issue that remains is the correctness of Ext. P8 decision issued by the Election Commission, taking the view that a member who is abroad with leave, is entitled to initiate a motion of no confidence. A member could be deprived of certain rights if he proceeds abroad without leave. But if he goes with leave, he cannot be deprived of any of his rights in terms of the statutory provisions. He is entitled to receive honorarium also. Deprivations, if any, could be only in accordance with the statute. There is no prescription in law disabling a person who is abroad with leave from participating in a no confidence motion. Hence, he will not be incapacitated even from being party to the exercise of moving a no confidence motion. Therefore, Ext. P8 stands.