Judgment:
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The petitioner, an elected member of the Kalpetta Municipality, is a member of one of its Standing Committees. Notice of a motion of no confidence against him is given. He challenges that as one intended to tarnish his image. He pleads that the allegation of negligence as against him alone, is beyond comprehension, since it is the collective responsibility of all the members of the committee to act diligently. He also contends that the matter involved in the no confidence motion is sub-judice in an election petition challenging his election.
2. A motion of no confidence does not necessarily depend upon the abilities, capabilities or qualities of the person against whom it is moved. That is part of political process. Support to a particular person may. depend upon various factors; sometimes even unreasonable in the views of the common man. A no confidence motion does not depend on anything other than the support that it may gather on being moved. If the motion does not gain the support of the required majority, that would fall on the floor.
3. The ground, if at all any, for a no confidence motion, is not a matter for consideration by any court or any authority, except that democratic house before which it is moved. Though it is suggested that Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, provides a forum to challenge a decision on a no confidence motion, it does not appears to be so. All that could be challenged under that provision is a resolution. What emerges as the result of a meeting on the basis of a notice for moving a motion of no confidence is nothing but the result of a voting in a house and is not a resultant resolution or a decision as envisaged in Section 57, for any superior authority to rectify or interfere with. Such power is unavailable with any authority. The fundamental theory of democracy would itself be annulled, if such interference is provided for. Democracy depends on the strength attained by votes and nothing else. The learned standing counsel for the Election Commission also pointed out the decision of this Court in N.J. Valsalam v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2003(1) KLJ 583 in this regard.
4. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner's application before the Election Commission to interfere in the matter is pointed out. The learned Counsel for the Election Commission states that on 7-9-2009, that request was rejected as not maintainable. I do no wish to express anything on that merely because, if so advised, the petitioner may challenge it. I do not find any ground to issue any direction, including to the 3rd respondent to consider any complaint of the petitioner in relation to the no confidence motion.
5. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed in limine. At the request on behalf of the petitioner, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner participating in the meeting in which the no confidence motion would be considered.