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