Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Mr.K.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.35192 of 2007 would submit that imposition of requirement of 4/5th members for the purpose of moving the motion is undemocratic and according to him, the 'will of majority' means simple majority and not 80%. He would also submit that there is no intelligible differentia between the election and removal. For the purpose of election what is required is 50% while for the purpose of removal 80% is required, which according to him, is without jurisdiction. He would rely upon the judgement in Aashirwad Films vs. Union of India and Others [2007 (5) MLJ 170 (SC)] and the Division Bench order of this Court in P.Sankara Narayanan, Proprietor, Shri Bhuvaneswari Films, Chennai vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2007 (5) MLJ 1178]. By virtue of the amendment, the very right of the members of the Council to move no-confidence motion is taken away and that would amount to making inroad into the democratic principles, which are the basic structures of the Constitution.

5. Mr.G.Jeremiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.34888 of 2007 would submit that if really the intention of the Government is to prevent the unhealthy trend of moving no-confidence motions, moved indiscriminately the Government has power under Section 41 of the Act to dissolve or supersede the Council. He would submit that democracy being the basic structure of the Constitution, election of a Chairman as per Section 12 (2) of the Act only requires simple majority, but, by virtue of the Amendment made to Section 40A(12) of the Act, 4/5th majority is required for the purpose of removal. Again, according to him, there is no intelligible differentia between the election and removal. His further submission is that Section 9 of the Amendment Act by which pending proceedings abated cannot apply in cases where the resolution has been passed before the amendment came into effect as in W.P.No.34888 of 2007, the subsequent notification by the State Government is only consequential, since the term used in Section 40A(12) is "shall" which means the Government has no option other than but to notify the removal of the Chairman. To substantiate his contention that retrospective effect to the Act is not valid, he would rely upon the judgement in Mylapore Club vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2006 (1) MLJ 27 (SC)]. In respect of effect of passing resolution, the learned counsel relied upon the judgement of Bombay High Court in Jaisingh Vithoba Girase vs. State of Maharashtra and others [AIR 2000 Bombay 317] and also in Ramesh Mehta vs. Sanwal Chand Singhvi and others [2004 (5) SCC 409], apart from Samala Jayaramaiah vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1998 AP 205].

" 10.When all Constitutional posts like Supreme Court Judges, High Court Judges, Chief Election Commissioner, Members of the Election Commission, Chairman and Members of the Union Public Service Commission and that of the State Public Service Commissions, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, all Civil Servants, Government Servants, Public Servants, including the experienced military personnel right from chief of Army Staff to Sepoy, etc. have age limit and or specific number of terms, the impugned provision of Section 239(2)(b) providing the post of State Election Commissioner without age limit is wholly arbitrary, and cannot be countenanced as it is in violation of basic structure of the Constitution viz., free and fair elections which is the foundation of the Constitution.