Joseph Thomas v. State of Kerala — 1996 DIGILAW 448 (KER)

Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed, J. The petitioner is the President of the Naranammoozhi Grama Panchayat. While he was functioning as the President, a no-confidence motion was tabled against him by the Panchayat Committee held on 15.7.1996. It was presided over by the second respondent, the Deputy Director of Panchayat, Pathanamthitta District. Out of the total number of 9 members, 5 members voted in favour of the no-confidence motion. Accordingly, the second respondent declared that the motion of no-confidence against the petitioner was carried. Ext. P3 is the copy of the minutes of the Panchayat Committee held on 15.7.1996. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext. P1 minutes of the meeting and prays for consequential reliefs. 2. In C.M.P. No. 20046 of 1996, this Court has initially stayed the operation of Ext. P1 minutes declaring that the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was passed. A final order was passed therein on 30th September, 1996 vacating the said interim order. As against the said interim order, the petitioner filed Writ Appeal No. 1469 of 1996. The Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 20046 of 1996. However, it directed to dispose of the writ petition itself at the earliest. That is how this matter is coming up before this Court for the final disposal of the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places strong reliance on the decision of this Court in Ambili v. Deputy Director (1996 (2) KLT 486) in support of his contention. The contention is that the half of the members out of nine cannot be four and half, which is unimaginable, and so, it has to be rounded to five. If this constitutes half of the elected members 'more than one half would only be six members. Therefore, the counsel maintains that since the motion is not supported by six members, it is not correct to say "that the motion was passed. It appears to me that the above line of argument was accepted in Ambili's case supra. 4. If this constitutes half of the elected members 'more than one half would only be six members. Therefore, the counsel maintains that since the motion is not supported by six members, it is not correct to say "that the motion was passed. It appears to me that the above line of argument was accepted in Ambili's case supra. 4. The provision which came up for interpretation in Ambili's case was sub-s.(12) of S.157 which is ec¬typed in the said judgment as thus: "If the motion is carried with the support of more than one-half of the elected members' present at the meeting, the Government shall by notification in the Gazette, remove the President, Vice President or the Chairman of the Standing Committee". Itis significant to note that in the said decision this court was interpreting the words 'more than one half of the elected members'. In this context, the learned single judge came to the conclusion as thus: "Thus, in a Panchayat having a strength of nine elected members, one half of the elected members will be five. More than one-half will come to six. Hence, until the motion has the support of six members, the motion cannot be said to be passed". 5. The learned Counsel for respondents 4 to 8 submitted that what this Court has considered in Ambili's case supra, was the unamended provision contained in sub-s.(12) of S.157. Sub-s.(12) was amended by Act 7 of 1995 and the amended provision is as follows: "If the motion is carried with the support of more than one-half of the sanctioned strength on that Panchayat the Government shall, by notification in the Gazette, remove the President, Vice-President or the Chairman of the Standing Committee, as the case may be". What is relevant in this amended provision is the words 'more than one-half of the sanctioned strength'. In the present case, one-half of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat would be tour and half and more than four and half would be five. Thus the distinction between the provisions contained in sub-s.(12) as unamendsd and as amended by Act 7 of 1995 is crystalline. Therefore, in a Panchayat having a strength of 9 elected members, 5 members will constitute more than one-half of the sanctioned strength. Thus the distinction between the provisions contained in sub-s.(12) as unamendsd and as amended by Act 7 of 1995 is crystalline. Therefore, in a Panchayat having a strength of 9 elected members, 5 members will constitute more than one-half of the sanctioned strength. That the interpretation that one half of the sanctioned strength in the facts of this case would be five and more than five would be six, will no doubt' do violence to the legislative purpose. After the amendment, the object of the provision is made unambiguous and certain. In this context, it must be recalled what the Supreme Court said in The New Piece Goods, Bazaar Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (AIR 1950 SC 165). "It is elementary that the primary duty of a court is to give effect to the intention of the Legislature as expressed in the words used by it and no outside consideration can be called in aid to find that intention". 6. The interpretation that is sought to be placed by the petitioner according to me is against the spirit and content of basic norms of democratic governance. It also results in anomalous situation in the working of the Panchayats. It is the function of the court to avoid such results while interpreting the provision in a statute. It cannot be attributed to the Legislature that such result is obviously intended by it while enacting the provision. What.is required is an interpretation in consonance with the content and spirit of the legislative purpose. 7. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Wahid Ullah Khan v. District Magistrate, Nainitai (AIR 1993 All. 249) interpreted the provision contained in sub-Section (12) of S.37A of the U.P. Municipalities Act. There the word 'majority' came up for consideration. An identical argument as raised here was advanced by the petitioners in that case. While rejecting the said argument, the court observed thus: "the argument on behalf of the petitioner, that half of the members out of fifteen cannot be seven and half which is an impossibility. Therefore, it has to be rounded to eight and if this be the half the use of the words "more than half would only be nine members. This interpretation to the provisions of this Act, with respect, we do not accept. Rounding of a figure is only where a particular figure has to be arrived at. Therefore, it has to be rounded to eight and if this be the half the use of the words "more than half would only be nine members. This interpretation to the provisions of this Act, with respect, we do not accept. Rounding of a figure is only where a particular figure has to be arrived at. It may be for some relevance where half of the total member is necessary to be arrived at and in case seven could not be half and mathematically seven and half is half of fifteen then the principle of rounding of could be applied. In fact, various provisions or rules provide the rounding of where such contingency has to be arrived at, but in case where total number is fifteen and if the meaning of the word "majority' is more than one half would be a number of majority votes. In order to arrive at majority votes it is not necessary first to find the mathematical figure of half of the total to be seven and half and round that figure as there cannot be seven and half members to eight and then add up one number to make the majority of more than one half. That is to say, to make it nine. This argument is misconceived." In view of the discussion hereinabove, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext. P1 resolution passed by the third respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.