JOSE AUGUSTINE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition challenges the vires of S.157 (dealing with no confidence motion) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the consequential notices and proceedings taken.

(2.) The petitioners are elected members of Kalloorkad Village Panchayath. The 1st petitioner is the Vice President of the Panchayath and the 2nd petitioner is the Standing Committee Chairman of the Panchayath. The total strength of the Panchayath is 8. A notice under S.157 (2) of the Act was received by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, the 3rd respondent herein on 12-1-1999. In pursuance to the said notice the Deputy Director has convened the meeting of the elected members of the Panchayath on 29-1-1999 to consider the no confidence motion as per S.157(3) and 157(5) of the Act. At this stage this Original Petition is presented inter alia contending that the removal of a Chairperson once elected is not contemplated under the Constitutional Scheme in Part IX of the Constitution. Art.243C(5) of the Constitution provides for the election of the Chairperson of the Panchayath According to the Constitutional Scheme, a member including the Chairperson cannot be removed unless he is disqualified. He should be allowed to continue, till the expiration of his term of the member of the Panchayath provided he is not disqualified. It is further argued that a non member of the Panchayath, i.e. the Deputy Director of Panchayath, cannot be authorised to preside over and to decide on the motion. That would be arbitrary and violative of Art.243D and 243C(4) of the Constitution. It is further submitted that the motion is said to be moved without giving particulars of the motion and copies of letters said to have been sent expressing no confidence motion. This violates principles of natural justice. Lastly it is submitted that respondents 6 and 7 have suffered disqualification under the Anti Defection Ordinance and that the matter is pending before the Election Commission. Hence the meetings proposed should be postponed till the disposal of the petition pending before the 5th respondent. In support of his contention learned counsel referred to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Bar Council of Kerala v. Thankappan Pillai, ( AIR 1986 Ker. 144 ).

(3.) I have heard the counsel and considered the matter carefully.