IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 WA.No. 1789 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37968/2007 Dated 03/07/2009 .................... APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT: -------------------------------- JOSE MATHEW, MANIANGHATTU HOUSE, ANICAD VADAKKUM BHAGAM KARA, KALOORKULAM POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1,2 &4: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE YOHANNAN, MEMBER WARD NO.6, AKALAKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GEORGE THOMAS, MANIANGHATTUPARAMBKATHU HOUSE, ANICAD VADAKKUM BHAGAM KARA, KALOORKULAM POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. AKALAKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAGADEESHCHANDRAN NAIR. R4 BY ADV. SRI.JAJU BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, ALONG WITH WA NO.1794 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.Nos. 1789 and 1794 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Bannurmath, C.J. Aggrieved by the orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No.37968 and 37935 of 2007, both decided on 03.07.09, these two appeals are filed. 2. As common question of law arises for consideration in these two appeals, both the matters are taken up together for consideration and being disposed of by this single judgment. 3. The first respondent in both these appeals are the writ petitioners who had filed those writ petitions challenging the order of the Election Commission disqualifying them from the membership of the Panchayat on the ground that they being the conveners of Grama Sabha have failed to convene Grama Sabha meetings once in three months as is required under Section 3(3), inviting disqualification under Section 35 (p) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994(herein after WA Nos. 1789 & 1794 of 2009 -:2:- referred to as 'the Act'). As already noted by the impugned orders, noting the fact that even though the members were elected in June 2006, the conveners/writ petitioners failed to convene the first meeting within three months, the Election Commission held that there is failure of duty on the part of the conveners/members inviting disqualification under Section 35(p) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, when these petitioners approached this Court in two separate writ petitions relying upon the pronouncement of judgment by this Court in Kerala State Election Commission v. Mercy George [2008(3) KLT 783], learned Single Judge set aside the order of disqualification passed by the Election Commission and hence these two appeals. 3. Relying heavily upon the wordings in Section 3(3) of Malayalam version it is contended that as there is a requirement of “shall meet at least once in three months” and as admittedly the convener had not called for the meeting, he was rightly disqualified by the Commission. In this regard it is true that there is variation in respect of Section 3(3) of the Notification. In the Malayalam version though the words,'shall meet at least once WA Nos. 1789 & 1794 of 2009 -:3:- in three months' is there, the same is found absent in the English version. Relying upon Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India it is to be noted that when a legislation is passed in a language other than English and translated version is published in Gazette, the translated text in English language shall be deemed correct by the authority. In that view, as the words 'shall meet at least once in three months' is absent in the English version of Section 3(3), the contentions of the appellants have been rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is true that a Notification has been later issued which indicates the absence of such wording, but that by itself will not help the appellants in any way. 4. More over it is to be seen that though Section 3(3) mandates convening of a meeting by the convener, under Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj(Procedure for Convening and Conducting the Meeting of Grama Sabha) Rules, 1995 it is only the President who has to fix the date and time of such meeting and it is only for the Secretary to bring to the notice of the Convener such intimation. In the present case as the Conveners/writ petitioners have given explanation that though WA Nos. 1789 & 1794 of 2009 -:4:- the President was informed to convene a meeting and as it was his duty to convene the meeting, for failure of President fixing the meeting they cannot be disqualified and this aspect has been rightly, in our view, accepted by the learned Single Judge. As such, we find no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and hence these writ appeals are dismissed. Before closing, it is to be noted that, the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission submits before us that noticing the variation, representation has been made to the Government in this regard and it is for the Government to take immediate action to avoid further complications. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb WA Nos. 1789 & 1794 of 2009 -:5:-