R HARI Vs. THODUPUZHA MUNCIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioners who are elected members of the 1st respondent Municipality, seeking to quash Ext.P1 notice of motion issued by the 3rd respondent authorized officer, convening a meeting to consider a 'no confidence motion' on 24.01.2019 on the ground that, there is no sufficient notice as is contemplated under Sec.19(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, (hereinafter called, 'the Act, 1994'), dealing with no confidence motion. Thereupon, petitioners have submitted Exts.P4 to P7 complaints before the 3rd respondent, however, the same was not considered, and it is constrained by the same, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, basically stating that appropriate parties are not impleaded in the writ petition. That apart, it is stated that, a notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence against the Chairperson of Thodupuzha Municipality signed by 14 elected councillors of Thodupuzha Municipality was delivered to the 3rd respondent in person on 11.01.2019. The sanctioned strength of Thodupuzha Municipality fixed in terms of Sec.6 of Act, 1994 is 35. The notice of intention to move the motion of no confidence against the Chairperson was signed by not less than 1/3rd of the sanctioned strength of the Council and was accompanied by the motion proposed to be moved, produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition. On receipt of the notice of intention to move the motion, 3rd respondent issued Ext.P1 notice, convening a meeting of the elected Councillors of Municipal Council. Ext.P1 notice was issued on 14.01.2019, as 12th and 13th of January were public holidays. In Ext.P1 notice, the meeting to consider the motion was slated to 24.01.2019 and was sent by Registered Post to all the Councillors of Thodupuzha Municipal Council on 14.01.2019.

(3.) While so, Exts.P4 to P7 complaints were served on the 3rd respondent, stating that there is no ten clear days notice in convening the meeting. On examining the complaints, it was found that there was mistake due to oversight in Ext.P1 notice in respect of the date appointed for the meeting. Thereupon, Ext.R3(a) corrigendum notice was issued, slating the meeting to 25.01.2019. Ext.R3(a) notice was attempted to be served on all the elected Councillors of Thodupuzha Municipal Council by hand delivery through the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Municipality on 18.01.2019 itself, evident from Ext.R3(b) letter dated 18.01.2019, of the 3rd respondent instructing the 2nd respondent to serve Ext.R3(a) notice to all the Councillors. In Ext.R3(b), the 2nd respondent had endorsed that he has published Ext.R3(a) in the notice board of the Municipality on 18.01.2019. However, only 23 members received the notice and 12 Councillors refused to receive the notice. Out of the 12 Councillors who refused to receive notice, 4 persons are the writ petitioners. Ext.R3(c) is the report of service of notice.