IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22117 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.A.MUHAMMED,S/O.ABDULLA, VARAMANGALATH HOUSE, KONDURKKARA P.O, KALLADIPATTA VIA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.P.S.SHEEJA SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE STATE ELCTION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RETURNING OFFICER, ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEING THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ONGALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. SECRETARY, ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAT, KALLADIPATTA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 313. 4. ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLADIPATTA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 313. SC SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 22117 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 23, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an elected member of the 4th respondent Panchayat, belonging to the UDF Coalition and was also elected as the Vice President of the Panchayat. It is stated that one of the members of the UDF Coalition shifted his loyalty to the LDF Coalition. Thereafter a no confidence motion was moved against the petitioner and a meeting was scheduled on 16.6.2008 for moving that motion. Petitioner himself states that the meeting was scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on 16.6.2008 and the petitioner arrived at the Panchayat Office at 9.30 a.m. Thereupon he gave Ext.P2 letter of resignation to the 3rd respondent, Secretary of the Panchayat. It is stated that Ext.P2 was only a draft and was not intended to be a letter of resignation. According to him, all members of the UDF Coalition boycotted the meeting. Petitioner submits that thereafter he was WP(C) 22117 of 2008 2 informed that the motion was carried at the meeting. According to him, later, on coming to know that it was not on the no confidence motion that he was ousted, he made enquiries with the Secretary and came to know that Ext.P2 was accepted as his letter of resignation. It is stated that long thereafter he came across Ext.P1 notice issued on 14.7.2008 scheduling Vice Presidential election to 24.7.2008 and thereupon petitioner claims to have collected Exts.P2, P4 and P5 from the office of the Election Commission, invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It is stated that thereafter he has filed Ext.P6 before the 1st respondent, under Rule 5(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules, 2000. Thereafter this writ petition has been filed contending that he did not intend Ext.P2 as a resignation and that it was erroneously accepted. It is also his contention that while the 1st respondent is seized of the dispute regarding his resignation as per Ext.P6, election is scheduled on WP(C) 22117 of 2008 3 24.7.2008. 2. First respondent has filed a detailed statement. It is stated that in the meeting convened on 16.6.2008 by the Authorised Officer of the 1st respondent, a no confidence against the petitioner was to be considered. It is stated that the meeting was scheduled at 10 a.m. and that when the meeting commenced, out of 21 members of the Panchayat, 11 were present. According to the 1st respondent, before the commencement of the meeting, the Secretary of the Panchayat informed the Authorised Officer in writing that the petitioner had resigned from the Office of the Vice President. In view of the information so passed on by the Secretary, it was decided not to put the motion for debate and accordingly, the meeting disbursed at 10.30 a.m. Annexure A to the statement filed is the minutes of the meeting of the Panchyayat held on 16.6.2008. 3. It is also stated that by Annexure B letter of the Authorised Officer, the casual vacancy was reported to the 1st respondent and that the Secretary of the Panchayat WP(C) 22117 of 2008 4 forwarded to the 1st respondent a report regarding the casual vacancy as required under sec.153(16) of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is contended that on receipt of Annexure C, in terms of sec.153(16), the Election Commission has to conduct a fresh election and the election is scheduled to be held on 24.7.2008. It is contended that the contentions raised in the writ petition are clearly an after-thought to delay the election. The Secretary of the Panchayat also submitted that he had accepted Ext.P2 as the resignation of the petitioner and gave Ext.P3 receipt to him. He denies the averment that Ext.P2 was only a draft. 4. From the facts as noted above, it is obvious that the no confidence motion was scheduled to be moved on 16.6.2008 in the meeting that was to commence at 10 a.m. Admittedly, the petitioner went to the Panchayat Office at 9.30 a.m. and gave Ext.P2 to the Secretary, which was acknowledged as per Ext.P3. After giving Ext.P2, petitioner and the other members of the Panchayat owing loyalty to him, stayed away from the meeting. It is seen WP(C) 22117 of 2008 5 that out of the 21 members of the Panchayat, 11 members were present in the meeting. But for the fact that the petitioner had given Ext.P2, which was accepted by the Secretary as per Ext.P3 describing Ext.P2 as his letter of resignation, the no confidence motion would have been put to debate and would certainly have been carried. It was anticipating this and to avoid such a contingency that the petitioner gave Ext.P2 resignation. There is no explanation why Ext.P2 was given to the Secretary, if it was only a draft and why he did not protest when it was acknowledged by Ext.P3 describing Ext.P2 as a letter of resignation. 5. Subsequent to the acceptance of Ext.P2, as is evident from Annexure A, the meeting disbursed at 10.30 a.m. without any deliberation. The Authorised Officer, as per Annexure B, intimated the fact to the 1st respondent. The Secretary of the Panchayat, as required of him under sec.153(16), also reported the casual vacancy to the 1st respondent. All these things have happened immediately after 16.6.2008. It is much after all these, that on WP(C) 22117 of 2008 6 21.7.2008, petitioner filed Extr.P6 application invoking Rule 5(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules, 2000. The story that he came to know of the developments subsequent to 16.6.2008 only on coming across Ext.P1 is totally unbelievable and is against normal human conduct. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts emerging in the pleadings, I am not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P2 was only a draft and was not intended to be acted upon as his letter of resignation. From the conduct of the petitioner as explained in the previous paragraph, it is evident that the contention now raised is a clear after- thought. 7. In my view, Ext.P6 filed before the 1st respondent is also not maintainable. This is for the reason that in terms of sec.155(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, if any dispute regarding resignation arises, it shall be referred to the Election Commission for decision and its decision thereon WP(C) 22117 of 2008 7 shall be final. Proviso to the said section states that no dispute referred after 15 days from the date on which the resignation takes effect shall be entertained by the Election Commission. Thus there is a statutory prohibition against entertaining a reference received after 15 days from the date on which resignation has taken effect. In this case, the petitioner's resignation took effect on 16.6.2008 and Ext.P6 has been submitted by the petitioner only on 21.7.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the 15 days time specified in the proviso to sec.155(3) should start to run only from the date of knowledge of the acceptance of resignation. Ordinarily it may be so, but then, when the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no reason why an interpretation against the plain words of the statute should be attempted. Since it is clear from the words of the proviso that the time will start to run from the date on which the resignation takes effect, which, in this case, is 16.6.200, this contention also cannot be accepted. WP(C) 22117 of 2008 8 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Exts.P2 and P3 do not answer the requirements of the forms specified under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members) Rules, 2000. True, there is no literal compliance with th forms prescribed. But, since in this case, having regard to the fact that the petitioner intended Ext.P2 to be his resignation and that since the resignation has been accepted and has come into force as early as on 16.6.2008, and also in view of the developments that have taken place since then, I do not think this Court will be justified in entertaining this plea made today, when the election is scheduled to take place tomorrow. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-