Kerala High Court
Retnamma Raveendran And Ors. vs State Election Commission, Trivandrum ... on 1 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR2000KER337, AIR 2000 KERALA 337, (2000) 2 KER LT 584
Author: J.B. Koshy
Bench: J.B. Koshy
ORDER J.B. Koshy, J.
1. First petitioner is the President of third respondent Grama Panchayat, second petitioner is the Vice-President and third and fourth petitioners are members of the Grama Panchayat. The fourth respondent along with five others moved a 'no confidence motion'. Ext. P1, dated 3-4-2000 before the Panchayat Deputy Director, Alappuzha. The Panchayat Deputy Director by notice dated 5-4-2000 convened a meeting on 25-4-2000 at 11.00 a.m. The contention of the petitioners is that at the time when 'no confidence motion' was given the Panchayat Deputy Director has no authority to receive 'no confidence motion' and at any event, she has no power to preside over such a meeting. It is also contended by petitioners that when the meeting was conducted at 11.00 a.m. two objections were raised. First regarding jurisdiction of the Panchayat Deputy Director in convening the meeting and presiding over the meeting and the second objection is regarding non issuance of notice to the Vice-President. It is contended by the petitioners that the Panchayat Deputy Director, second respondent, was convinced about the objections regarding her absence of power in convening the meeting and the meeting was adjourned. But due to pressure from outside six members of the Panchayat again assembled at 1.00 p.m. and it was presided by the second respondent herself and Ext. P1 resolution of no confidence was passed at 1.45 p.m. Petitioners rely on various newspaper reports and Asia net coverage on the aspect.
2. Section 2 57 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') provides that 'no confidence motion' can be moved against the President or Vice President only in accordance with the procedure laid down. Therefore, it is mandatory that provisions in the Act have to be complied with while moving 'no confidence motion'. Section 157(2) of the Act provides that such proposed motion should be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf. Section 157(2) reads as follows :
"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 signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf."
Section 157(5) provides as follows :
"A meeting convened under this section shall be presided over by an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf."
Therefore, Section 157(5) was amended by Amendment Act 13/99 with effect from 24-3-1999 by which such meetings should be presided over by the President if the 'no confidence motion' is against the Vice-President and it should be presided over by the Vice-President if the motion is against the President. It is specifically mentioned by the introducing Sub-section 5A that an officer authorised by the Government can attend as an observer. Therefore, person who was authorised to receive the 'no confidence motion' cannot preside over the meeting in view of Sub-section 5A Introduced by Act 13/1999 . Again the Act was amended by Ordinance 3/2000 with effect from 18-1-2000. As per the Ordinance, motion of no confidence should be moved to the officer nominated by the Election Commissioner. The above Ordinance was replaced by Act incorporating the same provision and that is applicable from 18-1-2000. Therefore, only an officer authorised by the Election Commissioner can receive the 'no confidence motion' against the President or Vice-President after 18-1-2000. Since Ext. P 1 was accepted after 18-1-2000 and even after publication of the Amendment Act in March, 2000, it cannot be stated that it is protected as something done correctly under the old Act.
3. Since here the 'no confidence motion' was given to the Deputy Director of Panchayat was not an officer authorised by the Election Commissioner, the submission of 'no confidence motion' is illegal and without jurisdiction . Convening of a meeting by an officio authorised by the Government is also illegal and without jurisdiction in view of the Amendment Act. Therefore, decision taken in such a meeting is invalid and cannot be taken into account.
4. It is contended by the second respondent that she convened the meeting in view of the Government Order dated 1-3-2000, Ext. R 2(a), Ext. R 2(a) itself was passed after the Ordinance when Government has no power to nominate an officer to preside over the meeting or to receive 'no confidence motion'. The contention raised is that since Election Commissioner has not passed an order authorising any person to receive the ' no confidence motion the resolution passed can be accepted by her. There is clear lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Government for nominating such an officer. Legislature has specifically taken away that power with clear intention. Apart from the above if Election Commissioner has not nominated an officer, parties could have submitted the motion to the Election Commissioner directly. Ext. R3(a) said to have been issued by the Government on 3-3-2000 authorising an officer to receive the 'no confidence motion' and preside over the meeting is clearly Illegal and without jurisdiction. If second respondent has relied on a notification which is nullity because of the lack of jurisdiction, second respondents action in accepting the same and presiding over the meeting cannot be accepted . Apart from the above, it cannot be stated that at the time when meeting was convened there was no officer authorised by the Election Commissioner. The meeting was convened only on 25-4-2000. By that time there was authorised officer nominated by the Election Commissioner. Therefore, meeting convened by the second respondent on 25-4-2000 is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction and resolution passed in that meeting cannot be acted upon. I declare that the meeting held for passing 'no confidence motion' is Illegal and the minutes passed in violation of Section 157(2) and (5) of the Act is invalid. Since the original petition is allowed on the basis of the first point itself. I am not looking into the matter whether the meeting was adjourned sine die at 11.30 p.m. and whether it was reconvened at 1.00 p.m. without proper notice etc. at present as according to me, that question is irrelevant here for deciding the matter.
5. If the six persons who submitted no confidence motion want to give no confidence motion they are free to give no confidence motion to the authorised officer as per Ext. P3 and on receiving the same, steps can be taken to convene no confidence motion in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 157.
In view of the above, Ext. P6 resolution is set aside without prejudice to move fresh resolution according to law and the original petition is allowed. '