IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2397 of 2006()
1. M.K.SIVARAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. THE VYPEEN BLOCK PANCHAYATH SECRETARY,
3. V.K.IQUBAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :12/01/2009
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.2397 of 2006
-------------------------------------
Dated 12th January, 2009
JUDGMENT
Koshy, Ag.C.J.
Former President of the Edavanakkad Grama
Panchayat filed the writ petition. Ext.P1 no-confidence motion was
moved against him. All the 14 members of the Panchayat Committee
participated in the meeting. Eight persons supported no-confidence
motion and six persons opposed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner
was voted out and subsequently another person was elected as the
President. Major contention of the petitioner is that authorised
officer of the Election Commission was the Block Panchayat
Secretary, but, another person acted as the same. No-confidence
motion ought to have been accepted by the authorised officer, but, in
this case, it was accepted by another officer. It is contended that
authorised officer as stipulated in Section 157 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act is a persona designata and, therefore, he cannot
further authorise another person. No-confidence motion ought to
have been received by the authorised officer himself. According to
the petitioner, authorised officer was Block Panchayat Secretary
under section 157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and finding to the
W.A.2397/2006 2
contrary and receipt of notice by the Extension Officer (Housing) is
illegal. Counsel for the Election Commission submits that at that time
the Extension Officer (Housing ) was in charge of the Block Panchayat
Secretary. Learned single Judge after calling for the register found
that the above person who accepted the notice was acting as the
Vypeen Block Panchayat Secretary during the relevant time. Learned
Judge also noticed that eight persons favoured the no-confidence
motion and on the facts of this case, no relief can be issued in a writ
petition. We are also told that an election petition is pending. The
election petition can be disposed of according to law untrammelled by
the observations made in the writ petition. In view of the facts of this
case and alos considering the facts that eight members supported no-
confidence motion and another President was elected, we are of the
opinion that no interference is required in the impugned judgment.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.KOSHY
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
V.GIRI
JUDGE
tks