Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 587 (KER)

Sadasivan Pillai P. R. v. State of Kerala

2010-08-01

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, K.SURENDRA MOHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT : C.N. Ramachandran Nair J. This is a public interest litigation filed by two social workers for a direction to the State Election Commission to conduct election to the Local Self Government Institutions namely, Panchayats, Municipalities and Municipal Corporations strictly in terms of the constitutional provisions namely Article 243E and 243U of the Constitution of India. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned standing counsel appearing for the State Election Commission and learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State. 3. The counsel for the petitioners has relied on constitutional provisions and various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts and particularly the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad 2006 KHC 1539 : 2006 (8) SCC 352 : JT 2006 (9) SC 320 : AIR 2007 SC 269 . and contended that constitutional provisions visualise the holding of election in time so that simultaneously on the expiry of five years term of the previous council of the Panchayats or Muncipal Corporations, new council takes over charge. 4. It is conceded that the five year tenure of the present panchayats and other local Self Government Institutions is expiring on 01/10/2010 and since elections are not notified obviously installation of the new elected bodies will not be possible in terms of the above provisions of the constitution. 5. However, the Election Commission as well as the State Government have filed Separate counter-affidavits explaining the circumstances under which election happens to be getting delayed. They have stated about the major amendments that were made to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Municipalities Act in 2009 providing reservation for women, enhancement of wards and later Government Orders converting various Panchayats to Municipalities. and merging the same with Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. There is no need for us to consider the specific changes made in the case of several Panchayats and Municipalities which are not disputed by the petitioners. 6. The Supreme Court has in the decision above declared that the provisions of the constitution provide for holding of election strictly within time and if the State Government does not co-operate with the Election Commission, the State Election Commission can even approach the High Court for mandatory direction to the State Authorities to render all assistance for holding election in time. In this case, there is no case for the Election Commission that State Authorities have not co-operated with the commission in holding the election in time On the other hand what is clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the State Commissioner is that the circumstances which led to the delay in holding the election are not caused by the State Government but were rather inevitable consequence of major amendments that led to change in the constitution of various Local Self Government Institutions. The State Election Commission has produced documents and given a commitment to the effect that election for all the Local Self Government Institutions in the State as a whole could be held so that the new elected bodies could be installed in all institutions at least by 1st November, 2010. Therefore, there is going to be only a delay of one month in holding the election and in re-installing the new councils or committees for all the Local Self Government Institutions. 7. The petitioners’ prayer is that the changes that are taking place such as delimitation, reservation of wards for members of the scheduled caste and scheduled caste communities etc, in the case of some Local Self Government Institutions should not lead to delay in election to the other Local Self Government Institutions. The relief sought is for a direction to the Election Commission to hold the election in two phases so that at least for the sizable number of Local Self Government Institutions election will be held and new committees installed strictly in terms of the constitutional provisions. 8. We find force in the objection raised to this by the State Government and the State Election Commission because holding of election for all Local Self Governments Institutions in the State in one phase will be best for all concerned. In the first place, holding of election in two phases may lead to additional cost to the State. Further if election is declared in stages, the model conduct after declaration of election will apply to the representatives of all the Local Self Government Institutions disabling them from taking any policy decision. In the first place, holding of election in two phases may lead to additional cost to the State. Further if election is declared in stages, the model conduct after declaration of election will apply to the representatives of all the Local Self Government Institutions disabling them from taking any policy decision. Besides the difficulties and additional cost on account of holding the election in two stages, the delay is only a matter of one month and so much so Election Commission can be permitted to hold the election in one phase for all institutions in the State Based on the undertaking given by the Election Commission that elections will be held so as to install the newly elected councils in all the Local Gel Government Institutions at least by 1st November, 2010, we reject the petitioners’ prayer for direction to hold election m two phases. 9. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by declaring the legal position canvassed by the petitioners that timely election is mandatory under the constitution but by allowing the Election Commission to hold the election in one phase so that elected bodies can take office by 1st November, 2010. Even though election is going to be delayed by one month the elected members will vacate the office on expiry of five years tenure. Consequently the Government has to resort to Section 151 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Section 65 of the Kerala Municipalities Act to make alternate arrangements i.e. by appointing Special Officer or Administrative Committees in the place of the Panchayat Committees or Municipal Councils. The above enabling provisions are meant only to meet exceptional circumstances arising in the case of few Local Self Government Institutions and not meant to be used for appointing Special Officers or Administrative committees in all the Local Self Government Institutions in the State on account of delay in election. Of course, during the absence of elected bodies in the Panchayat or the Municipal Authorities the officers appointed under the above provisions should not take any policy decision but they can only attend to routine matters. However, in order to avoid a vacuum, it is for the State Government to notify Departmental Officers to act as Special Officers or Administrative Committees to take care of emergencies in Local Self Government Institutions. However, in order to avoid a vacuum, it is for the State Government to notify Departmental Officers to act as Special Officers or Administrative Committees to take care of emergencies in Local Self Government Institutions. In fact the same officer or same committee can function as such for more than one Local Self Government Institution.