Repo18/Law Manual Page0205

THE KERALA PANCHAYAT LAW MANUAL Sec. 158 members, the motion cannot be said to be passed – Under S. 157 7 (12), the support should be more than one-half of the elected members. In a Panchayat having a strength of 9 elected members, one-half of the elected members will be 5. More than one-half will come to 6. Hence, until the motion has the support of 6 members, the motion cannot be said to be passed. It could not be presumed that the word more was used by the legislature without any intention. The word majority is also absent in sub-s. 12. This interpretation is further strengthened by a reading of sub-s. 13, which says that if the motion is not carried on by the majority as aforesaid, no further motion shall be received until or after six months. Thus, the intention appears to more than half of the members should support the motion. The word number is absent. – Ambili v. Deputy Director – 1996 (2) KLT 486 : ILR 1997 (1) Ker.399 : AIR 1997 Ker.73. Alexandesr v. Director of Panchayats and others 1971 KLT 535; Wahid Ullah Khan v. District Magistrate, Nainital and Others AIR 1993 Allahabad 249. Referred to. Kurian v. Registrar 1994 (2) KLT 202 - Relied on] S.54 (13) (corresponding to S. 157 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994] - Does not give any power or privilege to the President or the Vice President to cling on to his office even after the no-confidence motion is carried with the requisite majority. - Joshi v. Dy. Director of Panchayat –1994 (2) KLT 297 : 1994 (2) KLJ 267. [M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India - AIR 1988 Supreme Court 782 - Referred to.] S.54(2) scorresponding to S. 157 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994)- Meeting for consideration of no-confidence motion adjourned being a public holiday - Does not bar a fresh meeting within six months from that date – There is no dispute that a meeting convened for consideration of a no-confidence motion shall be adjourned for any reason whatsoever. This is a provision intended to safeguard the interests of the movers of the resolution to see that the no-confidence motion is not adjourned flippantly or for extraneous reasons. But that does not mean that if the meeting is adjourned unjustifiably or illegally, an immunity is conferred on the President or the Vice President by barring a fresh meeting for another six months from that date. In fact it will be doing violence to the language of S.54(14) to read such a bar therein. What the sub-section provides is only that if the motion is not carried by a majority as prescribed in sub-s.(13) or where the meeting cannot be held for want of quorum, any subsequent motion of no-confidence shall not be taken up for consideration, for a period of six months. - Narendran v. State of Kerala – 1992 (2) KLT 213: 1992 (2) KLJ (NOC) 8 P.6: AIR 1994 Ker.54 : ILR 1992 (3) Ker.441: 1994 (1) Cur.LJ 554. In a Panchayat having a strength of 9 elected members, five members will constitute more than one half of the sanctioned strength.-Joseph Thomas v. State of Kerala -1996(2) KLT 927: ILR 1997(2) 369. 158. Right of individual members.- (1) Every member of a Panchayat shall have the right to move resolution and to interpellate the President or the Chairman of Standing Committee on matters falling within the administrative jurisdiction of the Panchayat in which he is a member subject to such rules as may be made by the Government. (2) Every member shall have access during office hours to the records 47[other than notified documents] of the Panchayat in which he is a member after giving due notice to the President (3) Every member may call attention of the Panchayat regarding the needs of the people of the Panchayat area on the default made in the work 49[and the scheme] undertaken by the Panchayat or regarding other matters of public importance.