Kerala High Court
S.Sheeja vs State Election Commission on 3 September, 2013
Author: K. Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/18TH BHADRA, 1935
WP(C).No. 22417 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
---------------
S.SHEEJA,
AMBADIYIL, AGASTHYAKODU, AMNCHAL.P.O.
KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
RESPONDENTS:
---------------
1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, L.M.S.JUNCTION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2. THE SECRETARY,
BLOCK PANCHAYATH, ANCHAL, KOLLAM 691 001.
3. ANCHAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ANCHAL, KOLLAM 691 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 22417 of 2013 (B)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
--------------------------
P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.6225/A/2013/SEC DATED 3/9/2013 ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.D 1213/13 DATED 3/9/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
-------------------------
JJ /TRUE COPY/
P.S.TO JUDGE
'CR'
K. SURENDRA MOHAN,J
-------------------------------
W.P(C) NO: 22417 OF 2013
----------------------------------
Dated this the 9th September, 2013.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings of the first respondent. The petitioner is the Vice President of the third respondent Grama Panchayat. A no confidence motion was moved against her on 12.8.2013. A meeting was convened by the first respondent for considering the no confidence motion on 27.8.2013. According to the petitioner, the motion was read over and was declared open for debate. The members present declared that the no confidence motion was unanimously approved. Accordingly, the second respondent who was presiding over the meeting declared that the motion had been passed. Thereafter, nine members of the opposition came into the hall, restrained the second respondent and demanded that the meeting be WPC 22417/2013 2 convened. The opposition members snatched the minutes book, tore off the pages of the book and disrupted the meeting. The second respondent reported the matter to the first respondent. It was found by the first respondent that the no confidence motion had not been passed in accordance with the procedure stipulated by Section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the 'Act' for short). This is for the reason that the members present had not cast their votes by means of an open ballot. In view of the above as per Ext.P1 proceedings, another meeting has been convened on 12.9.2013.
2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 by pointing out that the first respondent has no power to issue the same. As per Section 157(3) a meeting to discuss a no confidence motion has to be conducted within 15 working days of the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) was delivered to the concerned authority. That was not done. It is also pointed out WPC 22417/2013 3 that in view of Section 157(13) no fresh motion is permissible to be moved until the expiry of a period of six months. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate orders quashing Ext.P1 and a consequential direction that no fresh no confidence motion be moved until the expiry of the six months period stipulated by the statutory provision.
3. Adv.Murali Purushothaman appears for respondents 1 and 2. According to the counsel, the meeting that was convened for the purpose of discussing the no confidence motion could not be conducted in a peaceful atmosphere. The second respondent who was presiding over the meeting had also committed a mistake by adopting the procedure of a voice vote when the statutory provision stipulates only an open ballot. The pandemonium that subsequently broke out prevented the proceedings from being completed. In the said circumstances, the only option left was to convene a fresh meeting to discuss the no confidence motion. It was for the WPC 22417/2013 4 said purpose that Ext.P1 has been issued. Reliance is also placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court to contend that, in similar circumstances, a direction identical to Ext.P1 had been found to be justified. For the above reasons, it is contended that there is no infirmity with Ext.P1.
4. Heard. Section 157 reads as follows:-
"157. Motion of no-confidence.---(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a motion expressing want of confidence in the President or the Vice- President of a Panchayat may be moved in accordance with the procedure laid down herein.
(2) Written notice in such form as may be prescribed of the intention to move any motion referred to in sub-section (1) signed by such number of elected members of the Panchayat concerned as shall constitute not less than one third of the sanctioned strength of elected members of that Panchayat, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved shall be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat WPC 22417/2013 5 signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the State Election Commission in this behalf.
(3) The officer referred to in sub-section (2) shall convene a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat for the consideration of the motion, to be held at the office of the Panchayat at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than fifteen working days from the date on which the notice under sub-section (2) is delivered to him.
(4) The officer referred to in sub-section (2) shall send by registered post to the elected members of the Panchayat concerned notice of not less than seven clear days of any meeting held under this section and the time appointed therefor. Notice regarding this shall be affixed in the office of the Panchayat.
(5) A meeting convened under this section shall be presided over by an officer authorised by the State Election Commission under sub-section (2).
(5A) XXXX (6) A meeting convened for the purpose of WPC 22417/2013 6 considering the motion under this section shall not be adjourned except for reasons beyond human control. The quorum required for such meeting shall be one half of the elected members of that Panchayat.
(7) As soon as the meeting convened under this section has commenced, the person presiding shall read at the meeting the motion for the consideration of which it has been convened and declare it to be open for debate.
(8) No debate on any motion under this section shall be adjourned except for reasons beyond human control.
(9) A debate on any no-confidence motion shall automatically terminate on the expiry of three hours from the time appointed for the commencement of the meeting if it is not concluded earlier and upon the conclusion of the debate or upon the expiry of such period of three hours as the case may be, the motion shall be put to vote.
(9A) Election shall be by means of open ballot and the member who casts his vote shall write his WPC 22417/2013 7 name and affix his signature on the reverse side of the ballot paper.
(10) The person presiding shall not speak on the merit of the motion, and shall not be entitled to vote thereon.
(11) The copy of the minutes of the meeting together with the copy of the motion and the result of the voting therein shall forthwith, on the termination of the meeting, be forwarded to the Government by the officer referred to in sub-section (2).
(12) If the motion is carried with the support of the majority of the number of members of the Panchayat notified under sub-section (1) of Section 6, the President or the Vice-President as the case may be, shall cease to hold office thereafter and their offices shall be deemed to be vacant forthwith, and the officer authorised under sub-section (2) shall report the vacancy in such offices to the Government and the State Election Commission and the fact shall be published in the notice board of the Panchayat, and on receipt of such a report the Government shall WPC 22417/2013 8 notify in the Gazette the cessation of office by the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be.
(13) If the motion is not carried by such majority as aforesaid or the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, under sub-section (6), no notice of any subsequent motion expressing want of confidence in the same President or Vice-President shall be received until after the expiry of six months from the date of meeting, or the date fixed for the motion, as the case may be.
(14) No notice of a motion under this section shall be accepted within six months of the assumption of office by a President, or a Vice-
President."
It is clear from sub-section(3) of the above provision that a meeting to discuss a no-confidence motion has to be convened on a date not later than 15 days from the date on which notice of such motion is delivered to the first respondent. In the present case, the notice of motion was delivered on 12.8.2013. A meeting to discuss the same was WPC 22417/2013 9 convened on 27.8.2013 within the stipulated period. However, the second respondent who was presiding over the meeting after discussion permitted a voice vote. Even according to the statements in the writ petition, the motion was passed without any opposition. However, the trouble started thereafter. The opposition members entered the place of the meeting, created unruly scenes, snatched away the minutes book, tore away pages and disrupted the meeting. The riotous situation made conduct of the proceedings of the meeting impossible. Sub-section 9A of Section 157 mandates that the vote on the no-confidence motion shall be by open ballot. This is for the purpose of identifying whether any of the members had defected. The said procedure not having been adopted, it cannot be said that the no-confidence motion was either passed or defeated at the meeting that was conducted on 27.8.2013. Since the proceedings were disrupted, it is only appropriate that a fresh meeting is WPC 22417/2013 10 conducted, properly and in accordance with the statutory provisions. A Division Bench of this Court had occasion to consider a similar issue in Jacob Abraham v. State of Kerala {1999(1)KLT 225}. In the said case also there was obstruction by an unruly mob to the holding of a meeting to discuss a no- confidence motion. In the said case this Court has issued the following directions:-
"We therefore, quash Ext.P18 proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 1.9.1998 and give the following directions. The second respondent will proceed afresh with the no confidence motion received by him along with notice dated 18.8.1998 from the petitioners. He will take immediate steps to convene a meeting as contemplated under S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as if he has received the notice of motion today, the date of this judgment."
5. In the present case, it is a similar decision that has WPC 22417/2013 11 been taken by the first respondent in Ext.P1. Therefore, for the purpose of sub-section (3) of Section 157, the date of Ext.P1 shall be treated to be the date of the no-confidence motion. Any other view would only cause prejudice to the rights of the members who had moved the no-confidence motion, who are not parties to this writ petition. If the petitioner does not enjoy the confidence of majority of the members of the Panchayat Committee, permitting the petitioner to take advantage of the situation and to continue in office for a period of six months also would not be in public interest.
6. Apart from the above, a reading of sub section 13 of Section 157 shows that the embargo against moving a fresh no confidence motion is available only in the circumstances referred to therein. As per the provision, a subsequent motion is impermissible only in cases where -
WPC 22417/2013 12
(i) the motion is not carried by the requisite majority or
(ii) the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum.
Neither of the situations contemplated, exist in the present case.
For the above reasons, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P1 or to grant any of the reliefs sought. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj