M. Geevarghese vs Travancore-Cochin State and Others

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by M.V. Varghese of Kavalayil who was the President of the Vettikavala Panchayat, Vettikaval Pakuthy, Kottarakara Taluk. That Panchayat consists of a President and seven members including the Vice President. The seven members presented on 3-7-1954 a notice of intention to make a motion of no-confidence in the president before the Director u/s 40, Clause (2), Travancore-Cochin Panchayat Act, 2 of 1950. The Director authorised the Inspector to hold a meeting in connection with this motion under the third sub-clause of that section.

The Inspector issued notice of meeting on 21-7-1954. The meeting was fixed to 6-8-1954. At the meeting which was presided over by the Inspector all the members except one who remained neutral supported the motion which was carried. The motion was thus carried with the support of not less than three-fourths of the sanctioned strength of the Panchayat as provided in Clause 12 of Section 40. In fact, as already stated, all the members voted in favour of the motion except one who remained neutral. The Petitioner who is the President, of course, opposed the motion.

The Petitioner did not resign within two days after the passing of the motion. The Government, therefore, as enjoined by Clause 12 of the section removed the Petitioner from his office by Notification dated 12-10-1954, published in the Gazette dated 19-10-1954.

The Petitioner''s complaint before us is that the provision contained in the third sub-clause to the effect that the meeting to consider the motion shall not be later than 30 days from the date on which the notice under Sub-section (2) was delivered to the Director as also provision for the intervention of a period of not less than 15 clays between the notice of the meeting and the date fixed therefore have been violated with the result that the meeting was invalid and the resolution passed thereafter is of no effect.

Such a resolution will not support or sustain the order of Government removing the Petitioner from officer. Questions as regards the mandatory character of the provision contained in Clause 3 in respect of the time within which the meeting is to be held and the period of notice to be issued for the meeting were debated at the Bar by learned Counsel on both sides. The only parties to the petition are (1) the State, (2) the Panchayat Inspector and (3) the Vice President to whom the Government ordered the Petitioner to hand over charge.

The other members of the panchayat are not before us. The prayers in the petition are first to quash the proceedings of the Government dated 12-10-1954 published in Gazette dated 19-10-1954 removing the Petitioner from the office of President and, second, to restrain Respondent 3 from taking charge as President to which office he would succeed on removal of the President. The reason why the order of the Government is to be quashed is the invalidity of the resolution passed by the Panchayat.

Under Clause 13 of Section 40(1) it is obligatory on the Government to pass an order removing the Petitioner from office should he not resign within two clays after the passed of the motion. The motion was parsed at a meeting of the Panchayat. The members of the Panchayat by whom the motion was passed are the real parties interested in the matter of the propriety or otherwise of the resolution.

In the absence of all the members of the Panchayat from record except the Vice President it is not competent for the Court to declare the resolution invalid and if the resolution cannot be declare invalid this petition cannot be sustained. In his view, it is not necessary to consider the mandatory character or otherwise of the provisions contained in Clause 3 of Section 40 and the consequence of the violation of those provisions. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed the circumstances, we make no order for costs.