Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1957 DIGILAW 10 (KER)

K. S. Venkiteswara Iyer v. M. C. Mathai

1957-01-10

KUMARA PILLAI, M.S.MENON

body1957
Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the President of the Kadapra Panchayat. He challenges the validity of a motion expressing want of confidence in the President which was passed at a meeting of the Panchayat held on 8.4.1956. 2. Ext. P is an official memorandum of the Director of Local Bodies, Trivandrum (9th respondent) dated 18.2.1956. It reads as follows: "A notice of no-confidence motion against Sri. K.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, the President of the Kadapra Panchayat, presented before the Director of Local Bodies on 17.2.1956 by M/s. M.C. Mathai, Vice President and G. Achuthan Thambi, K. Appukuttan Adissar and P.A. Mathew, members of the Panchayat, is forwarded herewith to the Panchayat Inspector, Chengannur. The Panchayat Inspector, Chengannur, is hereby authorised under S.40(3) of the Panchayat Act II of 1950 to convene the meeting within the prescribed time, for the discussion of the motion. A copy of the minutes of the meeting together with a copy of the motion and the result of voting thereon shall be forwarded forthwith on the termination of the meeting to the Director of Local Bodies, Government and Deputy Director of Local Bodies". The Inspector of Panchayats, Chengannur (8th respondent) who was authorised by Ext. P under S.40(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950, presided over the meeting held on 18.4.1956, and the first contention before us is that he had no right to do so for lack of a specific authorisation to preside apart and distinct from the authorisation to convene a meeting. 3. Sub-ss. (3), (4) and (5) of S.40 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950, read as follows: "3. The Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf shall then convene a meeting for the consideration of the motion to be held at the office of the Panchayat at a time appointed by him which shall not be later than thirty days from the date on which the notice under subs-s. (2) was delivered to him. He shall give to the members notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor. 4 The Director or the authorised officer shall preside at the meeting convened under this section, and no other person shall preside thereat. He shall give to the members notice of not less than fifteen clear days of such meeting and of the time appointed therefor. 4 The Director or the authorised officer shall preside at the meeting convened under this section, and no other person shall preside thereat. If within half an hour after the time appointed for the meeting, the Director or the authorised officer is not present to preside at the meeting, the meeting shall stand adjourned to a time to be appointed and notified to the members by the Director or the authorised officer under sub-s. (5). 5 If the Director is unable to preside at the meeting and no officer has been authorised by him, he may after recording his reasons in writing, adjourn the meeting to such other time as he may appoint. The date so appointed shall not be later than thirty days from the date appointed for the meeting under sub-s. (3). Notice of not less than seven clear days shall be given to the members of the time appointed for the adjourned meeting". The only authorisation that is contemplated by these sub-sections appears to be an authorisation to convene a meeting. No separate authorisation for presiding is indicated and we are unable to see any warrant for the contention that an authorisation to convene a meeting is not sufficient and that there should be a further authorisation to preside at the meeting so convened. 4. Ext. P1 is the notice issued by the 9th respondent on 22.2.1956 in pursuance of Ext. P. "In pursuance of the order L5-2220/56 dated 18.2.1956 issued by the Director of Local Bodies, Trivandrum, authorising me to convene a meeting of the Kadapra Panchayat for discussing the no-confidence motion against Sri. K.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, the President of the Panchayat, I, Panchayat Inspector, Chengannur, hereby give notice that a meeting of the Panchayat will be held on 12th March 1956 at 3 p.m. at the Kadapra Panchayat Office for the said purpose. All members of the Panchayat are requested to be present at the meeting". No meeting was held on 12.3.1956 and the 8th respondent issued Ext. P2 on 23.3.1956: "The President and all the members of the Kadapra Panchayat are hereby informed that under S.40 sub-ss. All members of the Panchayat are requested to be present at the meeting". No meeting was held on 12.3.1956 and the 8th respondent issued Ext. P2 on 23.3.1956: "The President and all the members of the Kadapra Panchayat are hereby informed that under S.40 sub-ss. (4) & (5) of the Panchayat Act II of 1950 the meeting of the Panchayat fixed to be held at 3 p.m. on 12.3.1956 for discussing the no-confidence motion against Sri. K.S. Venkiteswara Iyer, the President of the Panchayat, is adjourned to 3 p.m. on 10.4.1956, since the Panchayat Inspector could not attend the meeting fixed to be held on 12.3.1956 in the Panchayat Office as he was laid up with lumbage. I, the present Panchayat Inspector, Chengannur, hereby give notice that the meeting for discussing the no-confidence motion against the President will be held under my Presidentship at 3 p.m. on 10.4.1956 in the Panchayat Office. The President and all the members of the Panchayat are requested to be present at the meeting". 5. It was not possible to hold a meeting on 10.4.1956 as a result of an order of Nandana Menon, J. on C.M.P. No. 95 of 1956 in O.P. No. 81 of 1956: "Notice taken and opposed. The meeting convened for 10.4.1956 will stand adjourned to 18.4.1956 and be subject to orders in these proceedings". The petitioner before us was the petitioner in both the C.M.P. and the O.P. mentioned above. On 17.4.1956 the judge passed the following order: No ground to grant any further relief in this petition. Hence dismissed", and the meeting was held on the date to which it was adjourned, namely on 18.4.1956. 6. The second of the three contentions of the petitioner is that under sub-ss. (4) and (5) of S.40 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950, it is not possible to hold a meeting later than 30 days from the date appointed for the meeting under sub-s. (3) which was 12.3.1956 and that the meeting held on 18.4.1956 was clearly out of time. We do not think we need evaluate this contention as the order of the Court adjourning the meeting from 10.4.1956 to 18.4.1956 was passed on a petition filed by the petitioner and should be treated as binding on him. He, at any rate, cannot be considered as a person entitled to question the correctness of the order adjourning the meeting to 18.4.1956. He, at any rate, cannot be considered as a person entitled to question the correctness of the order adjourning the meeting to 18.4.1956. 7. The third and last submission before us is that the 4th respondent had incurred a disqualification under S.16(h) of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950: "Subject to the provisions of S.17, a member shall cease to hold office, if he (h) fails to pay arrears of any kind due by him (otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity) to the Panchayat within three months after a bill or notice has been served upon him in pursuance of rules made under this Act, or where in the case of any arrear, such rules do not require the service of any bill or notice, within three months after a notice requiring payment of the arrear (which notice it shall be the duty of the Executive Authority to serve at the earliest possible date) has been duly served upon him". The Kadapra Panchayat has a sanctioned strength of eight members and under sub-s. (2) of S.40 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950, written notice of intention to make the motion should be signed "by such number of members as shall constitute not less than one-half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat." The notice of intention to make the motion was signed by respondents 1 to 4 and if respondent No. 4 was disqualified the notice will not be a valid notice under sub-s. (2) of S.40 of the Travancore-Cochin Panchayats Act, 1950. 8. The learned Government Pleader assures us that the 4th respondent had not incurred the disqualification alleged, that he was not a defaulter, and that he had paid all dues for 1954-55 on 13.8.1955 along with the dues for 1955-56. Apart from this the provisions of S.16 are subject to S.17 which provides: "(1) Whenever it is alleged that any person who has been elected as member of a Panchayat is not qualified under S.12, or has become disqualified under S.14,15 or 16 and such person does not admit the allegation, or whenever any member is himself in doubt whether or not he has become disqualified for office under S.14 or 15, such member or any other member may, and the Executive Authority shall, on the direction of the Panchayat or of the Director, apply to Government whose decision shall be final". "(2) Pending such decision, the member shall be entitled to act as if he were not disqualified". No application has been made to the Government under sub-s. (1) and so under sub-s. (2) the 4th respondent was entitled to function as a member of the Panchayat and act as he did. 9. In the light of what is stated above this petition has to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed though in the circumstances of the case without any order as to costs.