Kerala High Court
Sri.George Joseph vs Mrs.Lissiamma Chacko on 23 February, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5859 of 2010(F)
1. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, MEMBER, WARD NO.9,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MRS.LISSIAMMA CHACKO,MEMBER,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 5859 OF 2010 (F)
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4, an order passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner seeking an order disqualifying the 1st respondent in terms of Section 35(o) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
2. The allegation raised is that the 1st respondent was not properly elected as the Chairperson of the Welfare Standing Committee of the Kozhuvanal Grama Panchayat. The other contention raised is that by receiving Rs.18,900/- as honorarium, the 1st respondent caused loss to the Panchayat and that therefore the 1st respondent is to be disqualified.
3. In so far as the alleged irregularity in the election of the 1st respondent is concerned, the 2nd respondent has taken the view in Ext.P4 order that by a resolution, the 1st respondent has been elected and that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to consider the validity of the resolution. The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act itself provides remedies against illegal resolutions, if any, passed by the Panchayat. None of the WPC 5859/10 :2 : enumerated powers of the Election Commission confer power on the Election Commission to deal with the validity of the resolution. In such a situation, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the resolution evidencing election of the 1st respondent as Chairperson, it is upto the petitioner to seek his remedies against that resolution, which is not before the Election Commission, but before the appropriate authority designated for that purpose in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
4. In so far as the issue regarding the loss allegedly caused by the 1st respondent is concerned, the case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent did not discharge any duties as Chairperson, and therefore, by receiving honorarium, she caused loss to the Panchayat. The payment of honorarium to the Chairperson of a Standing Committee is in terms of Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (Honorarium and Allowances to Representatives of People) Rules,1995. Rule 3 provides for monthly honorarium to the President, Vice President and other elected members of a Village Panchayat, Block Panchayat and District Panchayat. Rule 3(1)(c) provides for payment of Rs.1800 to the Chairman of the Standing Committee of a Village WPC 5859/10 :3 : Panchayat. A reading of the Rule shows that a person who has been elected as Chairman of the Standing Committee is entitled to be paid honorarium as provided in the Rules. Therefore, if the 1st respondent has been elected as Chairperson, she is entitled to be paid honorarium. In such a situation, the allegation of the petitioner that the 1st respondent did not infact discharge the duties of a Chairperson is inconsequential. Therefore, even if the 1st respondent has received honorarium, that cannot be said to be wrong so long as she was the Chairperson of the Standing Committee.
Writ petition merits only to be dismissed and I do so.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp