Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This Writ Petition relates to the election of the Standing Committees of the Poovachal Grama Panchayat. Being a Village Panchayat, it should have three Standing Committees, one for Finance, another for Development and yet another for Welfare.
2. The elected members of the Panchayat, collectively called 'Panchayat Committee', met on 29/10/2005, on a previous notified agenda, for the election of the aforesaid three Standing Committees provided by Section 162 of the Kerala Panchavat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', since Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000, hereinafter 'SC Rules', for short, provides that such election shall be held in a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat, convened by the President, for such purpose. Rule 5 of the SC Rules further enjoins that the election shall be in the serial order of the Standing Committees as given in Sub-section (1) of Section 162, that is, in the order that I have referred to above.
3. On 29/10/2005, after the election to the Standing Committee for Finance was completed without any contest, the election to the Standing Committee for Development was held by secret ballot, since there was contest. Before leaving for lunch, the President declared the results of the election to the Standing Committee for Development. I am not immediately referring to the controversies touching the said election to the Standing Committee for Development, particularly as to whether the election ought to have been by a single transferable vote or otherwise.
4. No election to the Standing Committee for Welfare was held before the forenoon of29/10/2005.
5. The recess for lunch appears to have made a difference and the members returned to quarrel over the election. It appears that there was a hue and cry in the meeting regarding the election to the Standing Committee for Development. It is stated that the situation led to exchange of blows and what not, resulting in police intervention. The law and order situation did not permit any further transaction of business and it is stated that certain police cases are pending. At any rate, the election to the Standing Committee for Welfare was not held and so much so, the items listed fox the said meeting as per the agenda in terms of Rule 5 of the SC Rules remained incomplete.
The Deputy Director of Panchayats issued the impugned Ext. P3, setting aside the proceedings of 29/10/2005 and directing a re-scheduling of the election on the count that the election to the Standing Committee for Development was not held in accordance with the provisions in the SC Rules. This decision is challenged by the writ petitioner on grounds that the Deputy Director acted without authority; the SC Rules do not provide for setting aside an election and that there was no ground, on facts, to interfere with the election of the Standing Committee for Development. It is also attempted to be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure To Be Adopted On Illegal Resolutions) Rules, 2003, for short, hereinafter, the 'IR Rules', would not govern the situation and that even if it does govern, the IR Rules have not been taken recourse to, as enjoined by the said Rules.
7. It being a matter of some importance from the legal angle, I propose to dispose of the last among the contentions first. The IR Rules provide for dealing with illegal resolutions. It enjoins, among other things, that if the Secretary of the Panchayat is of the opinion that a resolution passed by the Panchayat has not been legally passed or passed in excess of the powers conferred by the Act or that if implemented, it may endanger human life, health or public safety, he shall, in writing, request the Panchayat, to review the said decision and the said request is to be included in the next meeting. The IR Rules also provide the modalities for consideration of the opinion of the Secretary by the Panchayat and further provide that if the Panchayat resolves to uphold the earlier decision, the Secretary shall forward the resolution of the Panchayat and his opinion to the Government as provided for by the IR Rules. It also provides a right to a citizen to challenge illegal resolutions. The Government may take appropriate action, on a resolution in terms of Section 191 of the Act, after providing, a predecisional hearing to, the Panchayat as provided by the IR Rules. Incidentally, it. is noticed that Section 191 of the Act provides a power with the Government to cancel or suspend the resolution of the Panchayat. Now, what is provided by Rule 5 of the SC Rules is the convening of the meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat and an election to the Standing Committees, in that meeting of the Panchayat. This means, the decision that emanates out of that election is the expression of the decision of the body consisting of the members of the Panchayat. Such a decision of the body of the members of the Panchayat is essentially a resolution of the Panchayat. The word 'resolution' is not defined either in the Act or in the relevant rules. Nor has any such definition in the relevant statutory provisions been brought to my notice by either side. 'Resolutions' in relation to a body corporate or a committee means and includes decisions taken at one of its meetings. In the backdrop of law governing meetings, the result of an election under Rule 5 of the SC Rules essentially finds expression as the decision of the body of the members of the Panchayat and is hence a resolution of the meeting of the members of the Committee of the Panchayat. So much so, such a resolution is one, which would be amenable to action by the Government, in accordance with law, under Section 191 of the Act and hence is a resolution which can be subjected to a procedure provided by the IR Rules.
8. It is the undisputed position that recourse to the IR Rules has not been made and no step whatsoever as contemplated under the said Rules has been initiated in relation to the election in question.
9. For one thing, there cannot be any resolution which can be treated to have been passed at all, since the meeting that commenced in the morning of 29/10/2005 did not, obviously, come to its legitimate closure, but was disrupted after the lunch of the members. So much so, this is not an instance where there was a completed election or a resolution of the Panchayat. In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to relegate the parties to proceedings under the Rules. That apart, even on merits, I am not inclined to treat that this resolution should undergo the process under the IR Rules, having regard to the undisputed course of events that occurred on 29/10/2005, as noticed, as well as the flow of events during the pendency of this writ petition.
10. Immediately after the disputed election on 29/10/2005, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.31381 of 2005. Since the Panchayat came on record stating that the results in relation to the election to the Standing Committee for Development were declared by the President, he withdrew that writ petition without prejudice to challenge the results.
11. Thereafter, this writ petition was considered for admission on 05/12/2005 and it was ordered that the election, following the impugned Ext. P3 decision shall be held, however, that the results shall not be declared. The said interlocutory order is in force, as of now.
12. The question raised by the petitioner as to whether the Deputy Director of the Panchayats has the authority or jurisdiction to issue a decision in the nature of Ext. P3 gains importance, in this context. The Deputy Director of Panchayats is not an authority under the IR Rules. Nor is he an authority, statutorily vested with the jurisdiction to consider any issue relatable to the election, in terms of Rule 5 of the SC Rules. In such circumstances, notwithstanding the legality or otherwise of factual findings in Ext. P3, the said order has to go. Ext. P3 is accordingly quashed.
13. Now, as already noticed. Section 162 (1) of the Act provides that the Village Panchayat shall have three Standing Committees. The SC Rules are framed under the powers conferred in that regard, as per the Act.
14. Rule 3 and 5(1) of the SC Rules are relevant in this context. They read as follows:
Rule 3: Number of Members in the Standing Committee.- The Panchayat shall in its first meeting convened after its constitution or reconstitution thereof and after the election of its President, determine under Sub-section (2) of Section 162, the number of members that each Standing Committee of the Panchayat shall have in it.
Rule 5: Election to the Standing Committees.--(1) The election to elect the members to the Standing Committees to be constituted under Sub-section ( 1) of Section 162 shall be held in a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat convened by the President for this purpose, in the serial order of the Standing Committees as given in the said sub-section within fifteen days after the number of members of the Standing Committees has been fixed under Rule 3.
(2) The President or, in his absence, the Vice-President shall preside over the election meeting:
Provided that a member who intends to be a candidate in the election shall not preside over that meeting.
15. A plain and harmonious reading of Rule 3 and 5(1) of the SC Rules would show that after its constitution or re-constitution and after the election of its President, the Panchayat shall, in its first meeting convened thereafter, determine the number of members that each Standing Committee of the Panchayat shall have in it. The election to elect the members of the Standing Committees shall be held in a meeting of the elected members of the Panchayat, convened for the said purpose in the serial number of the Standing Committees as given in Section 162(1) of the Act. This means that the meeting for the purpose of the election to the Standing Committees shall be one meeting and all the Standing Committees have to be elected in that meeting. The legislative intention in this regard is clear. Rule 7 provides for casting preferential votes and the scheme of Rule 5(l) of the SC Rules is to exclude the declaration of result of the decision to one among the Standing Committees from influencing the mind of the voter as regards the other Standing Committees.
16. In the instant case, indisputably, the Standing Committee for Welfare was not constituted and the meeting provided under Rule 5(l) of the SC Rules fell half-way through. So much so, in law, the situation is one, where it cannot be considered at all, that there was any meeting, held in terms of Rule 5(l) of the SC Rules, on 29/10/2005, of the members of the Grama Panchayat. It is hence declared that the meeting of the members of the Poovachal Grama Panchayat, convened on 29/10/2005 was not held and no election was legally held on that day.
17. In this Writ Petition, seeking to set aside Ext. P3 decision of the Deputy Director, which I have quashed, there is an interim order passed on 05/12/2005, at the stage of admission to the effect that the election pursuant to Ext. P3 can go on but the result of the election to be declared in terms of Sub-rule 5 of Rule 8 of the SC Rules shall not be declared. Such a situation continues even now. Though Ext. P3 has been quashed, an election has been held to all the three Standing Committees of the Panchayat, as authorised by this Court. The conduct of the said election, following the said interim order is not disputed. Nor is there any complaint against the same. Accordingly, notwithstanding the quashing of Ext. P3, in view of the declaration made in this judgment that no election was legally held on 29/10/2005, ends of justice would be satisfied if the results of the election held on 07/12/2005 following the aforesaid interim order dated 05/12/2005 are declared. It is so ordered and the parties will be governed by the results of the said election, which will be declared by the President in a meeting of the Panchayat, which shall be treated as part of the meeting held on 07/12/2005. The said meeting shall be held, following this judgment, at the earliest.