Petitioners are members of the Village Dweep Panchayat of Kavaratti Island ('the Panchayat', for short) under the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Among them, the first petitioner was the Chairperson of the Panchayat. The petitioners seek in this writ petition, a declaration that the no confidence motion moved by the fifth respondent against the first petitioner in the meeting of the Panchayat held on 2.7.2014 is null and void and that the first petitioner is entitled to continue as the Chairperson of the Panchayat. They also seek a declaration that in view of the provision in Regulation 21 (1)(c) of the Lakshadweep Panchayats Regulation, 1994, respondents 4 to 6 have ceased to become the members of the Panchayat.
2. The petitioners were elected as the members of the Panchayat during 2012 and the elected members of the Panchayat in turn elected the first petitioner as the Chairperson and the fourth respondent as the Vice Chairperson of the Panchayat. On 13.6.2014, the fifth respondent gave a notice of no confidence motion against the first petitioner. Ext.P1 is the notice of no confidence motion. Ext.P1 notice of no confidence motion was addressed to the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson and the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. A copy of the no confidence motion was submitted to the Director of Panchayats of Kavaratti island also. On receipt of a copy of the notice of no confidence motion, the Director of Panchayats, issued Ext.P2 communication to the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, directing him to take further action on the notice of no confidence motion in accordance with Regulation 29 of the Lakshadweep Panchayats Regulation, 1994 ('the Regulation', for short) and Rule 12 of the Lakshadweep Panchayats Business Rules, 1997 ('the Rules', for short). In the meanwhile, on 18.06.2014, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat placed the no confidence motion before the first petitioner, the Chairperson of the Panchayat and she has directed the Executive Officer to convene a meeting of the Panchayat on 02.07.2014 to consider the no confidence motion. Accordingly, Ext.P3 notice was issued to the members of the Panchayat by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat.
3. After having issued the notice for convening the meeting to consider the no confidence motion on 02.07.2014, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat issued Ext.P4 communication to the Director of Panchayats stating that respondents 4 to 6 have absented themselves for more than three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat and consequently they ceased to be the members of the Panchayat in view of the provision in Regulation 21(1)(c). As per Ext.P4, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat requested the Director to take appropriate action in the matter. In Ext.P4 communication, the dates on which the above respondents have consecutively absented from the meetings of the Panchayat were also mentioned. Ext.P4 communication was sent by the Executive Officer to the Director of Panchayats on 24.6.2014. Thereupon, on 1.7.2014, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 notice to all the members stating that the meeting scheduled as per Ext.P3 notice stands cancelled as it was found that the fifth respondent who has given the notice of no confidence motion ceased to be a member of the Panchayat. In the meanwhile, in response to Ext.P4 communication sent by the Executive Officer, the Director of Panchayats sent Ext.P7 communication to the Executive Officer stating that the matter of cessation of membership of the members has been examined by him and that since the members have resumed/participated in the subsequent meetings of the Panchayat, it is deemed that their absence has been condoned. As per Ext.P7, the Director of Panchayats has also directed the Executive Officer to make sure that the meeting proposed on 2.7.2014 is conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in the Regulation and the Rules.
4. Pursuant to Ext.P7 communication, Ext.P8 notice was issued by the Vice Chairperson of the Panchayat to all the members of the Panchayat informing them that the no confidence motion will be considered in the meeting proposed on 2.7.2014 itself. Pursuant to Ext.P8 notice, a meeting of the Panchayat was held on 2.7.2014 under the Chairmanship of the fourth respondent and the no confidence motion against the first petitioner was passed in the said meeting on a simple majority of six votes against five votes.
5. On 4.7.2014, when the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following interim order :
“Heard. Admitted.
Learned standing counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 3. Issue notice to respondents 2 and 4 to 9 by speed post.
The operation of no confidence motion said to have been passed in the meeting of Village Dweep Panchayat, Kavaratti against the first petitioner is stayed for a period of two weeks from today. It is made clear that on the strength of this order, the first petitioner can participate in the future meetings, but he will not have the right to vote, till a final decision is taken in the matter.
Post after two weeks in the petition list.”
It is not disputed that based on the interim order, the petitioner is continuing as the Chairperson of the Panchayat.
6. Respondents 1 to 3 and 4 to 9 have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3, it is stated that the various dates on which respondents 4 to 7 allegedly absented from the meetings of the Panchayat are not meetings convened in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and that respondents 4 to 6 were not given notice of the said meetings. It is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3 that since the no confidence motion was against the Chairperson of the Panchayat, the Vice Chairperson of the Panchayat was the authority to convene the meeting to consider the no confidence motion and it is on account of the said reason, he recalled the notice issued by the Executive officer of the Panchayat cancelling the meeting scheduled to consider the no confidence motion.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 9, they have contended that they were not given notices of the various meetings of the Panchayat referred to in Ext.P4 communication and therefore, they have not ceased to be the members of the Panchayat. They have also contended that the various meetings of the Panchayat referred to in Ext. P4 are not meetings convened in accordance with the Rules and therefore, the provision in Regulation 21 cannot be applied in relation to the said meetings to disqualify the elected members.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the provision in Regulation 21(1)(c), the fifth respondent who gave the notice of no confidence motion ceased to be a member of the Panchayat and therefore, he was not entitled to move a no confidence motion against the first petitioner. He has also contended that since the notice of no confidence motion was given against the Chairperson of the Panchayat, the meeting to consider the said no confidence motion should have been convened by the Vice Chairperson of the Panchayat as per the Rules and the meeting held on 2.7.2014 being one convened by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, the decision taken in the said meeting is null and void.
9. Regulation 21 reads thus:
“21.(1) A member of a Panchayat shall cease to be a member if--
(a) he is or becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 12; or
(b) he ceases to be ordinarily resident within the Panchayat area from which he was elected; or © he absents himself for more than three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat without the leave of the Panchayat.
(2) Where any person ceases to be a member of a Panchayat under sub-section (1), he shall also cease to hold any office in which he may have been elected or appointed by reason of his being a member thereof.”
In view of the said Regulation, a member of the Panchayat shall cease to be a member, if he absents himself for more than three consecutive meetings of the Panchayat. Rule 15 of the Rules reads thus :
15. Meeting to be notified : (1) A notice to attend the meeting of the Village (Dweep) Panchayat shall state the date, time and place of the meeting.
(2) Notice of meeting under sub rule (1) shall be sent to each member through a messenger atleast ten days before the meeting and shall also be displayed at conspicuous places within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat.”
Rule 15 of the Rules indicates that a notice to attend the meeting of the Panchayat shall be sent to each member through a messenger at least 10 days before the meeting. The notices of the various meetings of the Panchayat referred to in Ext.P4 communication have been produced by respondents 4 to 9 along with I.A.No.10751 of 2014. The notices of the said meetings indicate that none of those meetings have been convened, after giving 10 days notice to the members as required in the Rules. The notices referred to above would also indicate that the notices of the said meetings have not been served on respondents 4 to 6. In fact, the aforesaid facts are conceded in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 3. As such, it is evident that the meetings referred to in Ext.P4 notice are not meetings convened lawfully. If the meetings referred to in Ext.P4 are not meetings of the Panchayat lawfully convened, the disqualification provided for in Regulation 21 would not be attracted. When the law provides that the meetings of the Panchayat shall be convened in a particular manner and provides for automatic cessation of membership of the Panchayat for non-participation in the meetings, cessation of membership would take effect only if the meetings are convened in accordance with the procedure prescribed, for, the cessation is by operation of law. If the fifth respondent who has given the notice of motion is not disqualified under Regulation 21, the no confidence motion moved by him is valid in the eye of law.
10. Regulation 29(3) provides that the Chairperson or the Vice Chairperson, as the case may be, shall not preside over a meeting in which a vote of no confidence is discussed against him. Rule 12 of the Rules indicates beyond doubt that on receipt of the notice of no confidence motion, the Chairperson or the Vice Chairperson, as the case may be, shall convene a meeting of the Panchayat to consider the notice of no confidence motion. Regulation 29 (3) reads thus :
“29(3). Notwithstanding anything contained in this Regulation, the Chairperson or the Vice-Chairperson or President-cum-Chief Counsellor or Vice-President-cum-Counsellor, as the case may be, shall not preside over a meeting in which a vote of no confidence is discussed against him, but he shall have the right to speak, or otherwise take part, in the proceedings of such meeting, including the right to vote.”
Rule 12 of the Rules reads thus :
Notice of no confidence motion - (1) A written notice of intention to move a motion of no confidence under section 29 shall be necessary. It shall state the reasons for moving the motion and shall be delivered in person by the member of the Village (Dweep) Panchayat.
(2) On receipt of the notice of no confidence motion, the Chairperson or Vice Chairperson, as the case may be, shall convene a meeting of the Panchayat to consider the notice of no confidence motion within twenty days after issue of the notice for the meeting :
Provided that the notice of the meeting shall be issued within ten days on the receipt of the notice of no confidence motion and not less than ten days before the date of the meeting. (Substituted vide amendment dated 24.9.1998).
(3) Subject to the provisions under sub section (3) of Section 29, the Chairperson or the Vice Chairperson as the case may be, shall read out the notice received under sub section (1). He shall then allow the motion to be moved and discussed. Upon the conclusion of the debate, the motion shall be put to vote.
(4) The Chairperson or the Vice Chairperson, as the case may be, shall declare the result of the voting. The motion shall be deemed to have been carried only when it has been passed by a simple majority as prescribed under Section 29.”
A combined reading of the Regulation and the Rules referred to above would indicate that if the notice of no confidence motion is given against the Chairperson of the Panchayat, the meeting shall be convened by the Vice Chairperson and if the notice of no confidence motion is given against the Vice Chairperson, the meeting shall be convened by the Chairperson. The Rules also mandate that there shall be at least 10 days gap between the notice and the date of motion. Ext.P3 is the notice of the meeting convened to consider the no confidence motion.
Ext.P3 is issued by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Ext.R4(n) produced by respondents 4 to 9 along with I.A. No 15359 of 2014 indicates that on receipt of the notice of no confidence motion, the Executive Officer of the Panchayat, placed an office note before the first petitioner, intimating him about the requirements to convene the meeting to consider the no confidence motion and in the said office note, the first petitioner made an endorsement to the effect that a meeting can be convened on 2/7/2014. It is not disputed that the Executive Officer of the Panchayat convened the meeting to consider the no confidence motion based on the said endorsement of the first petitioner. Later, as stated above, the Executive Officer himself had cancelled the said meeting as per Ext.P5 communication. Ext.P8 notice of the Vice Chairperson of the Panchayat is only a notice recalling Ext.P5 communication issued by the Executive Officer. In Ext.P8, it is stated that the meeting will be held as scheduled on 2/7/20144. Ext.P8, in the circumstances, cannot be considered as a notice issued by the Vice Chairperson in accordance with the Rules for convening the meeting of the Panchayat. Even if Ext.P8 is considered as a notice of meeting convened by the Vice Chairperson, the same is not in accordance with the Rules, for, the same was not issued within 10 days of the receipt of notice of the no confidence motion and the meeting was not convened beyond 10 days of the notice. The various stipulations in the Rules might have been made with specific objectives and as such, all the procedures are mandatory and no relaxation of any of the procedure is permissible. It is thus evident that the meeting held on 2/7/2014 in which the no confidence motion against the first petitioner was moved is a meeting convened without authority of law.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 4 to 9 contended that the illegality, if any, in the convening of the meeting was caused by the first petitioner herself and therefore, she cannot take advantage of the same. As indicated above, notice of no confidence motion was issued to the Vice Chairperson of the Panchayat also. There was no impediment whatsoever for the Vice Chairperson to convene the meeting of the Panchayat. Merely for the reason that a meeting was convened by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat at the instance of the first petitioner, the Vice Chairperson of the Panchayat was not prevented from convening a meeting in accordance with the Regulation and the Rules. As such, it cannot be contended that the illegality in convening the meeting is attributable to the first petitioner.
12. It is beyond dispute that if a meeting is summoned without authority, it will be invalid. (See Shackleton on the Law and Practice of Meetings). Further, it is settled for more than a century that where an authority is given to do a thing in a particular way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden [Taylor v. Taylor(1875) 1 Ch. D 426)] The said principle has been followed consistently by the courts in the country. In Gopalakrishnan v. Executive Officer (1981 KLT 508), in the context of a meeting convened without authority to consider a no confidence motion against the President of a Panchayat, this Court held as follows :
“It is true that the said notification empowered the District Panchayat Officer, the second respondent, to receive the written notice of intention to make the motion of no confidence in the President; there is, however, nothing therein expressly or by necessary implication, empowering the second respondent to convene a meeting in exercise of the powers under sub-s.(3) of S.54 of the Act. This being the position, Ext.P1 notice issued and Ext.P3 proceedings passed by the second respondent are without jurisdiction. Needless to say that Ext.P2 resolution passed by the members voting for the no confidence and Ext.P4 notice calling upon the petitioner to resign his office also are null and void.”
The view taken by this Court in Gopalakrishnan v. Executive Officer (supra) is followed in Retnamma v. State Election Commission (2000(2) KLT 584). The relevant portion of the judgment reads thus :
“The meeting was convened only on 25.4.2000. By that time there was authorised officer nominated by the Election Commissioner. Therefore, meeting convened by the second respondent on 25.4.2000 is clearly illegal and without jurisdiction and resolution passed in that meeting cannot be acted upon. I declare that the meeting held for passing 'no confidence motion' is illegal and the minutes passed in violation of S.157(2) and (5) of the Act is invalid.”
In Anitha v. Kanjirappilly Block Panchayat (2004(3) KLT 211) this Court has categorically held that if the notice issued for convening a meeting to consider the no confidence motion is defective, the defects vitiate the entire transactions, including the conduct of the meeting. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment reads thus :
“Therefore I am constrained to accept the contentions of the petitioners, that there was no notice as envisaged by S.157(2) and (4) of the Act for convening a meeting. The defects vitiate the entire transactions, including the conduct of the meeting.”
13. In the light of the aforesaid principles, it is declared that the meeting of the Village Dweep Panchayat of Kavaratti held on 2.7.2014 pursuant to Ext.P3 notice was invalid and consequently, the decision taken in the said meeting on the no confidence motion against the first petitioner is null and void.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs