IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29018 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.V.KRISHNA DAS, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.T.C.VELAYUDHAN, KRISHNA MANIKKATHPADI, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT-680101. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT-680 101. 3. THE ELECTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE RETURNING OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, (DY.COLLECTOR (RR), TRICHUR). 5. THE RETURNING OFFICER, GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, (DY.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRICHUR). ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM FOR R3 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR GD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29018 OF 2010 (B) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of the controversy raised in the writ petition, there is no necessity to hear respondents 4 and 5. 2. Petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk under the 1st respondent. Petitioner wanted to contest in the election to the Guruvayoor Municipality and made an application to the 1st respondent seeking its permission. His request was considered and the 1st respondent Board passed Ext.P3 resolution, declining permission sought for, in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Ext.P3 decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P2 letter of the Administrator of the 1st respondent. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P2 and P3 and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to contest in the ensuing election. 3. A reading of Exts.P2 and P3 show that the only reason WPC No. 29018/10 :2 : stated for declining the permission sought for by the petitioner is the provisions contained in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Petitioner contended that Board employees are not covered by the provisions of Section 86. On this ground, he contended that Exts.P2 and P3 are illegal. 4. On the other hand, standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Board contended that administration of the Guruvayoor Devaswom is vested in a committee appointed in terms of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978. It is stated that the provisions of Section 86 imposing prohibition on the employees of Boards contesting local body elections will apply with equal force to the employees of the 1st respondent Devaswom. 5. In the light of the contentions raised by both sides, the only issue that arises for consideration is whether Section 86 of the Kerala Municipality Act stands in the way of the petitioner contesting the election. Section 86(i) of the Kerala Municipalities Act providing for disqualification of officers and employees of Government, Local authorities etc in the elections to the local bodies reads as under: (i) No officer or employee in the service of a State or Central Government or a local authority or a WPC No. 29018/10 :3 : corporation owned or controlled by a State or the Central Government or of a company in which a State or Central Government or local authority has (not less than fifty one per cent share) or of Boards or any University established under a State enactment shall be qualified for election as, or for holding the office of Councillor of a Municipality. 6. Evidently therefore, no officer or employee in the service of the State, Central Government, Local Authority, Board etc are disqualified from contesting an election or for holding the office of Councillor of the Municipality. 7. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the 1st respondent, the question to be examined is whether the employee of the 1st respondent can be held to be employees of Boards, who are prohibited from contesting the election. Section 86 places restrictions on the right of the employees. Since the statute places restrictions on the right of employees, necessarily such a statute calls for strict interpretation. 8. The administration of the Guruvayoor Devaswom is governed by the provisions of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act, 1978. Section 3 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act provides for the constitution of a Committee. Composition of the Committee is provided in Section 4. Unlike the provisions in Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 providing for the WPC No. 29018/10 :4 : constitution of the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board and the HR&CE providing for the constitution of Malabar Devaswom Board, there is no Board constituted in so far as the Guruvayoor Devaswom is concerned and on the other hand, it is a Committee which administers the affairs of the Devaswom. 9. Having regard to the fact that Section 86 calls for strict interpretation, I am inclined to think that the word 'Board' used in Section 86 cannot have application to the employees of the Guruvayoor Devaswom, the administration of which is vested in a Committee constituted as per Sections 3 and 4 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Act. Therefore, the provisions contained in Section 86 of the Act cannot have any relevance in so far as the petitioner or the other employees of the 1st respondent are concerned. Further, Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, being a later statute, if the legislature wanted Devaswom employees also to be covered by the prohibition contained in Section 86, the word 'Committee' or 'Devaswom' would have found a place in Section 86. Therefore, the legislature, in its wisdom, having not included Devaswom employees in section 86, this Court cannot extend the operation of the Section, by a process of interpretation. In that view of the WPC No. 29018/10 :5 : matter, the decision as contained in Ext.P3, which is communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the provisions contained in the Regulation 25 of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Employees Regulation, the Government Servants Conduct Rules apply to the employees of the Devaswom. In terms of Clause 69(3) of the Conduct Rules, only with the permission of the Committee, its employees can offer themselves as candidate for election to a local authority. Therefore, even if the the provisions of Section 86 of the Kerala Municipality Act are inapplicable to the employees of the Devaswom, they have to obtain permission of the Devaswom to contest in the election, in view of the provisions of the Conduct Rules. Necessarily therefore, the request of the petitioner will have to be reconsidered in terms of Clause 69(3) of the Conduct Rules. This the Board shall do and appropriate action in the matter will be taken before 27th of this month. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp