Bhasi @ Bhaskaran (Petitioner) v. State Election Commission and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1934 WP(C).No. 30007 of 2012 (A) PETITIONER: -------------BHASI @ BHASKARAN AGED 49 YEARS CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, 5/102, PUTHUR PALAKKAD 678001. BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LMS JUNCTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OFFICE, TAXI STAND BUILDING PALAYAM, KOZHIKODE 673004. 3. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD 678001. 4. M.SUNIL KUMAR COUNCILOR, WARD NO.6, ABHAYAM LN PURAM, CN PURAM P.O., PALAKKAD 678011. 5. NASSAR.A COUNCILOR, WARD NO.17, 32/147 THANGAL LANE, NARIKUTHI, PALAKKAD 678014. 6. K.K.KAJA HUSSAIN COUNCILOR, WARD NO.37, 35/321 KALATHIL PARAMBU HOUSE, KALLIKKAD, PALLIPURAM PALAKKAD 678004. 7. P.U.SULAIMAN COUNCILOR, WARD NO.3, SANKHUVARATHODE 3/507, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD 678002. 8. BASHEER AHAMMED P.M. COUNCILOR, WARD NO.52, PADINJAREKKARA HOUSE POOKKARATHOTTAM, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD 678002. 9. MINI BABU COUNCILOR, WARD NO.47, NILANMKAVIL HOUSE KALLIKKAD, PALLIPURAM, PALAKKAD 678006. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN,SC, R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD R3 BY SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC 30007/2012 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.E-4726/12 DATED 06.12.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NILANMKAVIL JJ /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE ## **K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. -----------------------------------------------------------W.P(C) NO: 30007 OF 2012 ----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] December, 2012.** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, an elected Councilor of the third respondent Municipality and Chairman of the Standing Committee for Development has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 notice issued by the second respondent. Ext.P1 notice is issued convening a meeting of the Standing Committee for Development on 15-12-2012 to consider a no confidence motion that has been moved against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Rule 15 of the Kerala Municipality (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000 (the 'Rules' for short), Ext.P1 should have been accompanied by the original motion in form No:4 of the Rules. The said procedure not having been complied with, it is contended that the meeting convened on 15-12-2012 is irregular. A further contention is raised that though the motion was received by the authorised officer on 6-12-2012, on the same day itself the notice convening a meeting of the Standing Committee has been issued thereby showing ugly haste in taking action on the said notice. WPC 30007/2012 2 2. Adv.Murali Purushothaman appears for respondents 1 and 2. According to the counsel, Rule 15(2) contemplates an outer limit of fifteen days, within which a meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion has to be convened. The Rule also mandates that notice of seven clear days of the said meeting should be given to the elected members. For the above reason, the second respondent had to act within the limits of the restrictions imposed by Rule 15(3) so as to ensure that sufficient notice is given to the elected members and the outer time limit is adhered to. It was only with the above end in view that Ext.P1 notice was issued on the same day itself. The counsel also places reliance on the decisions of this Court reported in **Thangal v. Block Development Officer {2007(3) KLT 561}** and **Chathukutty v. Kalpetta Municipality {2009(4)KLT 303}** to contend that it is not open to the petitioner to maintain the above writ petition at this stage. Adv.T.C.Suresh Menon appears for the third respondent. The counsel also supports the contentions of the counsel for respondents 1 and 2. I have heard the counsel appearing for the contesting parties. 3. Rule 15(1) of the Rules reads as follows:- WPC 30007/2012 3 “ **15. Expressing no-confidence in the Chairman of the Standing Committee** .---(1) A notice, in respect of the intention of presenting a motion expressiing no-confidence in the Chairman of a Standing Committee other than the Standing Committee for Finance shall be delivered in person, in Form No.4 appended to these rules, signed by not less than one-third of the elected members of the Standing Committee, together with a copy of the motion which is intended to be presented, to the Officer authorised by the State Election Commission to receive the notice of no-confidence in respect of the Chairperson.” As per the above provision, a notice expressing an intention of presenting a motion of no-confidence in the Chairman of the Standing Committee:- i) shall be delivered in person ii) in form No:4 appended to the Rules iii) signed by not less than 1/3 rd of the elected members of the standing committee iv) together with a copy of the motion which is intended to be presented WPC 30007/2012 4 v) to the officer authorised by the State Election Commission to receive the notice of no-confidence in respect of the chair person. Therefore, the above provision applies only to the presentation of a motion of no confidence to the authorised officer. The issue of notice convening a meeting and issue of notice to the other members of the committee are stipulated by sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 15, which reads as follows:- “(2) The Officer referred to under sub-rule(1) shall, for considering the motion, convene a special meeting of the members of the concerned Standing Committee to be held at the Office of the Municipality at a time appointed by him and not later than fifteen working days from the date on which he received the notice under sub-rule(1) (3) The Officer referred to under sub-rule(1) shall, by registered post, give not less than seven clear days notice to the elected members of the concerned Standing Committee, showing the time and date fixed for convening the special meeting referred to under sub-rule(2).” As per the above rule, the meeting to discuss the no-confidence motion has to be convened not later than 15 working days from the WPC 30007/2012 5 date on which he received the notice under sub-rule(1). As per subrule (3), the officer has to serve notice by registered post on all the elected members of the standing committee giving not less than seven clear days. The above provision does not stipulate that the notice of motion in form No:4 should accompany the notice. Ext.P1 contains the details of the motion that is proposed to be moved. Therefore, the provisions of the Rules are satisfied by the issue of Ext.P1. 4. In **Thangal v. Block Development Officer (supra)** it has been held that even a composite notice that related to motions of no-confidence against the President and Vice President, met the requirements of the statutory mandate. It has also been held that the whole idea of serving such notice is to ensure that the members are foretold about the matters on which they have to exercise their choices. In another decision **Chathukutty v. Kalpetta Municipality (supra)** it has been held that notice of motion of noconfidence cannot be the subject matter of a challenge before any authority for the reason that the merits of the said motion would have to be tested at the meeting that has been convened to discuss the same. WPC 30007/2012 6 5. Apart from the above, in the present case, the respective counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the notice of motion has been published in the notice board of the Municipality also. Therefore, I am not satisfied that any interference with the discussion of the said motion on 15-12-2012 is called for.. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. jj /True copy/ Sd/K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge P.S.to Judge WPC 30007/2012 7