Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 382 (KER)

Mathew Joseph v. Arakulam Panchayat

1990-09-20

SREEDHARAN

body1990
Judgment :- When C.M.P. No. 12041/1990 came up for orders learned counsel appearing on either side wanted the Original Petition itself heard and disposed of. Accordingly, I heard them in detail. I am disposing of the Original Petition. 2. Government by Ext.P4 order, G.O.(MS) No. 32/90 dated 25-6-1990 extended the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to the Arakulam Panchayat area in Idukki District with effect from the date of publication of the notification. Petitioner challenges the notification on the ground that Resolution No.13 stated to have been passed by the Arakulam Panchayat requesting for the extension of the provisions of the Act to the area covered by the Panchayat was not one validly passed. Reliance has been made to Rules 4 (1) and 5 of the Kerala Panchayats (Proceedings of Panchayat Meetings and Committees) Rules, 1962, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. As per Rule 4(1) no meeting shall be held unless notice of the day and time when the meeting is to be held and the business to be transacted there-atlas been given at least 3 clear days before the date of the meeting. It means that the business to be transacted in a particular meeting should have been fixed earlier and its notice should have been given to the members at least three clear days before the date of the meeting. As per Rule 5 the agenda of the meeting should be prepared by the Executive Authority in consultation with the President and all items proposed to be considered in the meeting should be included in the agenda. 3. The agenda of the meeting of the Panchayat held on 21-2-1989 did not make mention of the resolution requesting the Government for extending the provisions of the Act to its area. Since the agenda was silent on this aspect the members were not given three clear days notice as contemplated by R.4 (1) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, the absence of the agenda and three clear days notice to the members has vitiated the action taken by the Panchayat. The resolution which was *passed without agenda, according to counsel, must be taken as invalid. On the basis of such an invalid resolution the Government should not have extended the Act to the Arakulam Panchayat. 4. The resolution which was *passed without agenda, according to counsel, must be taken as invalid. On the basis of such an invalid resolution the Government should not have extended the Act to the Arakulam Panchayat. 4. Provision to S.11(3) of the Artist he effect that a notification extending the provisions of the Act should be issued only if it is supported by a resolution passed by the local authority of the area affected by the notification. Therefore, the validity of Ext.P4 Government order depends on the validity or otherwise of resolution No. 13 passed on 21-2-1989 by the Arakulam Panchayat. It is common case that the Panchayat consists of 10 members. It is also agreed that all the 10 members attended to the jetting heldon21-2-1989in which resolution No. 13 was passed. It is also agreed that the agenda of the meeting held on 21-2-1989 did not specifically mention the subject of the resolution. So, there was no notice of the said business of three clear days as mentioned in R.4(1) of the Rules. Since the entire body corporate, viz., all the 10 members of the Panchayat were present at the meeting can resolution No. 13 passed by it be quashed on the ground of violation of R.4(1) of the Rules? Same issue came up for consideration before this court in Kodiyathur Panchayat v. District Panchayat Officer, Calicut (1977 KLT 80). A Bench of this Court observed: "Under the general law relating to meetings no business of an important nature is to be taken up at a meeting of a council or a committee unless notice is given in respect of it to all the concerned members. In other words, notice of meetings should specify the business to be transacted. "When notice is given that particular business will be transacted at a meeting, no other business can be embarked upon at that meeting unless the whole body corporate is present and consents". Xxx XXX xxx XXX It follows that a resolution passed on a subject not included in the agenda of a meeting would be good only if all" the members of the committee are present at the meeting and if all of them waive the formality of notice." As stated earlier, all the ten members of the Arakulam Panchayat attended the meeting held on 21-2-1989. One member opposed the extension of the provisions of the Act to the area covered by the Arakulam Panchayat. He did not oppose the consideration of Resolution No. 13. The records now placed before court leads to the inference that all the ten members agreed to consider resolution No. 13. In that consideration nine members were in favour of the resolution and one member opposed the same. No member opposed the consideration of Resolution No. 13 as such. Therefore, Resolution No. 13 passed on 21-2-1989 cannot be stated to be invalid, on account of the absence of agenda as provided in Rule 4(1) of the Rules. The result therefore, is that there was a valid resolution and it was carried at the meeting of the panchayat. On the basis of that resolution, the Government in exercise of the powers u/s.1(3) of the Act extended the provisions of that Act, to Arakulam Panchayat. I do not find any vice in the action taken by the Government. 5. Petitioner has raised a contention that the Government was wrong in extending the provisions of the Act to the Panchayat area in the absence of specific recommendation to that effect by the Director of Panchayats. No provision of law was brought to my notice by the learned counsel representing the petitioner, which requires such a recommendation from the Director of Panchayat. As stated earlier, the provisions of the Act is clear and specific when it states that the provisions of the Act can be extended to the area covered by a local authority on that authority passing a resolution for the said purpose. Since a resolution has been passed by the Arakulam Panchayat for extending the provisions of the Act to the area covered by the Panchayat, I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P4 Government order. In the result, the Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Issue photocopy of the judgment to the parties on usual terms.