Kerala High Court
Geetha Sukumaran vs The State Election Commission on 16 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.7592 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER:
GEETHA SUKUMARAN,
AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING IN
THE ADDRESS CHIRANGADATH HOUSE, PALLISSERY
P.O., AVINISSERY PANCHAYATH,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 027.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ,
KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
HAVING OFFICE AT 'JANAHITHAN' TC 27/6 (2),
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695 033
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT-695 001
3 THE SECRETARY,
AVINISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
HAVING OFFICE AT AVINISSERI P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 306
4 THE RETURNING OFFICER,
ELECTION TO THE AVINISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE,
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, CHERPU P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT,PIN-680 561
5 INDIRA JAYAKUMAR,
W/O.JAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT NADUVATH HOUSE,
AVINISSERY PANCHAYATH, PALISSERRY P.O.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 027
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..2..
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA
SMT.RANJITA GP
R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
R5 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-04-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7602/2021(A), THE COURT
ON 16-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..3..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 26TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.7602 OF 2021(A)
PETITIONER:
HARI C. NARENDRAN,
AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. NARENDARAN C.R, RESIDING
IN THE ADDRESS CHAKALAKAL HOUSE, PERINCHERY,
AVINISSERY PANCHAYATH,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
KERALA STATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, HAVING
OFFICE AT "JANAHITHAM" TC 27/6(2),
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT 695 033.
2 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT 695 001.
3 THE SECRETARY,
AVINISSERY RAMA PANCHAYATH, HAVING OFFICE AT
AVINISSERI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 306.
4 THE RETURNING OFFICER,
ELECTION TO THE AVINISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE,
AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, CHERPU P.,
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 561.
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..4..
5 A R RAJU,
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT
EDATHEDATH HOUSE, VALLISSERI, AVINISSERY
PANCHAYATH, PERICHERI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT
680 306.
R1 BY ADV. SHRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC, STATE
ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA
R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR
R5 BY ADV. SMT.A.K.PREETHA
SMT.RANJITA GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-04-2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).7592/2021(Y), THE COURT
ON 16-04-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..5..
C.R.
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2021.
JUDGMENT
The question falls for consideration in these
matters being common, they are disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. The petitioner as also the fifth respondent in
both the writ petitions are members of Avinissery Grama
Panchayat (the Panchayat) elected to the office on
10.12.2020. There are altogether 14 seats in the Panchayat.
In the election held on 10.12.2020, 5 seats were won by the
political alliance, Left Democratic Front, 6 seats were won by
the political alliance, National Democratic Alliance and the
remaining 3 seats were won by the political alliance, United
Democratic Front. The petitioners in the writ petitions belong
to National Democratic Alliance. After the election to the
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..6..
Panchayat, election to the offices of the President and Vice-
President of the Panchayat was held on 30.12.2020. The
petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7602 of 2021 was nominated as a
candidate for the election to the office of the President by the
National Democratic Alliance. Likewise, the fifth respondent in
the said writ petition was nominated as a candidate for the
election to the office of the President by the Left Democratic
Front. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7592 of 2021 was
nominated as a candidate for election to the office of the Vice-
President by the National Democratic Alliance and the fifth
respondent in the said writ petition was nominated as a
candidate for election to the office of the Vice-President by the
Left Democratic Front. The Kerala Panchayat Raj (Election of
President and Vice-President) Rules, 1995 (the Rules) framed
under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act) provides
for open ballot for election to the offices aforesaid. In the
election held on 30.12.2020, the members of the Panchayat
representing the United Democratic Front as also the Left
Democratic Front voted for the fifth respondent in W.P.(C)
No.7602 of 2021 and consequently, he was elected as the
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..7..
President of the Panchayat, securing 8 votes. The petitioner in
the said writ petition could secure only 6 votes of the
members belonging to National Democratic Alliance. Similarly,
the members of the Panchayat representing the United
Democratic Front as also the Left Democratic Front voted in
the said election for the fifth respondent in W.P.(C)No.7592 of
2021 and consequently, she was elected as the Vice-President
of the Panchayat, securing 8 votes. As in the case of W.P(C)
No.7602 of 2021, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7592 of 2021
could also secure only 6 votes of the members of National
Democratic Alliance. Consequent upon the election, though
the elected candidates assumed office as President and Vice-
President of the Panchayat by making and subscribing the
oath of office, they have resigned from the respective offices
immediately thereafter on the same day itself, pretending
that they do not want to hold the offices with the support of
the members of United Democratic Front. The resignation of
the President and the Vice-President of the Panchayat has
been reported by the Secretary of the Panchayat to the State
Election Commission. The State Election Commission
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..8..
thereupon notified a fresh election to the said offices on
17.02.2021. In the election held on 17.02.2021 also, the very
same candidates were nominated by the political alliances to
the respective offices and the very same candidates won the
election with the support of votes cast by the members of the
United Democratic Front. As done on the previous occasion,
on this occasion also, the elected candidates assumed office
as President and Vice-President by making and subscribing the
oath of office and resigned from the respective offices
immediately thereafter, on the next day itself, on the very
same ground aforesaid. The writ petitions were instituted at
that point of time, seeking a declaration that the petitioners
are duly elected as the President and Vice-President of the
Panchayat in the election held on 17.02.2021. The case set
out by the petitioners in the writ petitions is that since the
elected candidates have resigned immediately after making
and subscribing the oath, it has to be inferred that they were
not willing to discharge the duties and responsibilities
attached to the respective offices and therefore, the
petitioners who were willing to discharge the duties and
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..9..
responsibilities attached to the respective offices are entitled
to be declared elected.
3. The stand taken by the State Election
Commission as also the contesting respondents in their
respective pleadings is that since the contesting respondents
have assumed offices pursuant to their election by making
and subscribing the oath of office before tendering
resignation, the vacancies that arose on account of their
resignation thereupon are liable to be treated as casual
vacancies, warranting a fresh election in terms of sub-section
(16) of Section 153 of the Act.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned Standing Counsel for the State Election
Commission as also the learned counsel for the fifth
respondent in the writ petitions.
5. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court
in T.A.Abdul Azeez v. The Kerala State Election
Commission and Others, 2006 KHC 1046, the learned
counsel for the petitioners submitted that a person who is
unwilling to discharge the duties and responsibilities attached
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..10..
to an office is not entitled to be a candidate for election to
that post and since the elected candidates demonstrated by
their conduct that they were not willing to discharge the
duties and responsibilities attached to the respective offices,
the candidates who have secured the second highest number
of votes are entitled to be declared as the President and Vice-
President of the Panchayat.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State
Election Commission as also the contesting respondents
submitted that since the candidates elected to the office of
the President and Vice-President have assumed office by
making and subscribing the oath, the vacancies arose on
account of their subsequent resignation are liable to be
treated as casual vacancies and the mandate of the statute
contained in sub-section (16) of Section 153 of the Act is that
there shall be a fresh election to the said vacancies, and this
Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioners flouting the
said statutory provision. In addition, the learned counsel for
the contesting respondents also submitted that the
resignation of the contesting respondents after the election
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..11..
was as desired by their political alliance in terms of their
political stand and when their political alliance require them to
resign from the offices, they are bound to obey the direction,
for mandate of the people was for the political stand of their
alliance. Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel for the State
Election Commission submitted that a fresh election to the
offices of the President and Vice-president is scheduled to take
place again on 20.04.2021.
7. I have considered the contentions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties on either side.
8. Section 153(1) of the Act provides for a
President and Vice-President for every Panchayat elected from
among the elected members of that Panchayat. Section
153(1) also provides that the President shall be a full time
functionary of the Panchayat. Section 156 of the Act
prescribes the functions of the President and Vice-President of
the Panchayat. Going by the scheme of the Act, without the
incumbents in the offices of the President and Vice-President,
the Panchayat will not be in a position to discharge its
functions as a constitutional institution. In other words, if
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..12..
there are no incumbents in the offices of the President and
Vice-President of the Panchayat, the very purpose of
establishing the Panchayat and conferring on them the powers
and authority to function as a unit of self Government would
be defeated.
9. Sub-section (13) of Section 153 of the Act
provides that before entering upon the offices, an oath or
affirmation in the form set out in the Second Schedule to the
Act shall be made and subscribed by the President and Vice-
President. Sub-section (16) of Section 153 provides that any
casual vacancy arising in the office of the President or Vice-
President shall be reported to the State Election Commission
and the State Election Commission shall take steps for
conduct of election of President or Vice-President, as the case
may be, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section
2(vi) of the Act defines 'casual vacancy' as a vacancy
occurring otherwise than by efflux of time. In T.A.Abdul
Azeez, in the light of the pari materia provisions contained in
the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, this Court held that
willingness to act as a Chairperson, if elected, and to assume
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..13..
office and discharge duties and responsibilities attached to
the office is sine qua non for a person to be nominated as a
candidate for election to the Chairperson of a Municipality and
a person who is unwilling to take oath and assume office as a
Chairperson of the Municipality, whatever be the excuse,
cannot be regarded as a candidate for election to that post. It
was clarified by this court in the said case that adherence to
the policies of the political party concerned is no answer to
the constitutional obligation to discharge the public duties
attached to the office to which he is elected. It was also held
by this court in the said case that if such a person does not
take oath within the time stipulated, the vacancy arose on
account of such a situation cannot be regarded as a casual
one, warranting fresh election. T.A.Abdul Azeez is a case
where a person elected as a Chairperson of a Municipality has
not assumed office by making and subscribing the oath, and
it was held in the said case that in the absence of any
provisions to take care of such a situation, the person who
secured the second highest number of votes is entitled to be
declared as the Chairperson of the Municipality. Paragraphs 20
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..14..
to 23 of the said judgment read thus:
20. This litigation is not one to be treated as an
adversarial one, between the petitioner on the one hand
and the contesting respondents on the other. While
hearing such a matter, the constitutional court acts as a
sentinel on the qui vive discharging its obligation as
custodian of the constitutional morals, ethics and code of
conduct well defined in a series of judicial
pronouncements. The Court, while scrutinising the conduct
and activities of those involved in the administration of a
public institution, like a Municipality which is constituted
with the avowed object of serving the society, is obliged to
see that its existence and activities are guided with the
object of public good and are in consonance with the
constitutional goals. The constitutional courts are not to
remain silent spectators watching the subversion of the
Constitution. The fact that the founding fathers of our
Constitution designedly and deliberately, did not envisage
the imposition of any jurisdictional embargo on them is
significant and sufficient enough to identify the depth,
width and extent of the powers of the constitutional
Courts. The fetters devised or perceived on their exercise
of powers or jurisdiction to entertain and deal with a
matter are merely self imposed, for one or the other
reason, assigned therefor and they would not stand in the
way of or deter the constitutional Courts in any manner
from rising up to respond in a given situation as and when
necessitated and effectively playing their role in
accommodating the Constitution to changing
circumstances and enduring values. As sentinels on the
qui vive, the constitutional Courts are duty bound to
preserve and safeguard the Constitution, protect and
enforce the constitutional mandates which declare the
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..15..
inviolable rights of the people. The views in this regard,
expressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju in P.
Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 (4) SCC
578, are apposite in this context. The constitutional Courts
are ordained to uphold the Constitution and they interpret
the Constitution and defend the fundamentals of "rule of
law".
21. A legislation should withstand the tests on the
touchstone of the constitutional provisions. But then, it is
not always the corollary that all legislations have satisfied
the constitutional goals. Nor is it for the Courts to assume
that the constitutional goals are controlled and delimited
by the statutes made by the legislatures. The provision
contained in sub-s.8A of S.12 is merely one that the
Legislature envisaged as a possible way of notifying the
continued existence of a vacancy. But that is not all. There
is always a room unfilled by the statutes, but available in
the Constitution, going by that parent document of the
Nation which reflects the aspirations of her people and the
goals, to be achieved, which are always positive. In the
absence of Legislative provisions to take care of the
situation created by the third respondent, in my
considered view, it is the constitutional duty of the writ
court to come to the aid of a constitutional institution,
namely, the Palakkad Municipality.
22. As can be noticed from the facts of this case, all
that is going on, is a game of musical chair, merrily played
at the cost of the Exchequer. Is this what is contemplated
by the Constitution? Is this the dictate of the Sovereign,
namely, the People? The situation in hand is one where
the third respondent ought to be treated as one who has
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..16..
breached the willingness given by him in terms of R.6(1) of
the Election Rules by his refusal to take oath on being
elected by the electoral college which acted on the basis
of the willingness expressed by him in terms of the said
Rule. It is the situation where the third respondent has,
thus, recalled himself from being a contender to hold the
post of the Chairperson. The situation requires and
deserves to be remedied. Under the circumstances, it is
the situational requirement in terms of the Constitution
and the laws that the person who polled the second
highest number of votes is declared as the Chairperson
and is to be administered oath in terms of the law, to be
let to assume the office of the Chairperson. It is so
declared.
23. In view of the aforesaid, it is declared that the fourth
respondent is entitled to be administered oath in terms of
the law, to be let to assume the office of the Chairperson
of the Palakkad Municipality, following the election held on
24/05/2006.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the facts
of the present cases are identical to the facts of the case
decided in T.A.Abdul Azeez and the petitioners are,
therefore, entitled to the declaration sought in the writ
petitions as granted to the petitioner in T.A.Abdul Azeez.
The learned counsel for the contesting respondents, however,
takes the stand that the dictum in the said case cannot be
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..17..
applied to the facts of the present cases since the elected
candidates in the present cases have assumed their
respective offices by making and subscribing the oath of
office, before tendering resignations.
10. True, unlike in the case dealt with in
T.A.Abdul Azeez, the contesting respondents in the cases on
hand have assumed their respective offices pursuant to their
election by making and subscribing the oath. Since the
contesting respondents have assumed their offices pursuant
to the election before they have resigned from the offices
concerned, technically, it is possible to contend that there has
to be a fresh election to the offices in terms of Sub-section
(16) of Section 153. Should this Court uphold the said
technical stand ignoring the unusual and strange conduct of
the contesting respondents is the question to be addressed.
As noted, elections were held to the offices of the President
and Vice-President twice. On both the occasions, the
contesting respondents purported to have expressed their
willingness to be nominated as candidates for election to the
office of the President and Vice-President. As held by this
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..18..
court in T.A.Abdul Azeez, willingness of a member for being
nominated as a candidate for election to an office of the local
body is the willingness to act as the holder of the office, if
elected and assume office and discharge duties and
responsibilities attached to that office. As indicated, the Rules
provide for open ballot and the contesting respondents were
aware of the fact that they secured more votes than the
petitioners in the writ petitions, as the members belonging to
the United Democratic Front cast their votes in their favour. If
the ideology the contesting respondents possess does not
permit them to hold the offices of the President and Vice-
President with the support of the members belonging to
United Democratic Front, they should not have assumed
offices by making and subscribing the oath. In other words,
they have made and subscribed the oath without their being
any intention to hold the offices. This has happened not once,
but twice. It is evident that the contesting respondents have
adopted the said course for the purpose of preventing the
petitioners being elected to the respective offices following
the dictum in T.A.Abdul Azeez. In the course of the hearing,
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..19..
this court required the learned counsel for the contesting
respondents to state as to whether the contesting
respondents intend to contest again to the offices of the
President and Vice-President in the scheduled election. The
stand taken by the counsel in response to the said query was
that they may contest again, if they are required to contest by
their political party and they may resign also, if they are
required to do so after the election. As noted, though the
election to the Panchayat took place as early as on
30.12.2020, the members are unable to elect the President
and Vice-President of the Panchayat. If the contesting
respondents and the members belonging to the Left
Democratic Front adopt the same stand in the future elections
also, so long as the National Democratic Front and the United
Democratic Front do not have the strength sufficient to elect
the President and Vice-President of the Panchayat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the
Panchayat will not have a President and Vice-president at all.
As explicit from the statute, the mandate is that there shall
be a President and Vice-President for the Panchayat. The
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..20..
materials on record would show beyond any shadow of doubt
that the conduct of the contesting respondents in making and
subscribing the oath without there being any intention to hold
the offices was to ensure that nobody other than the
contesting respondents function as the President and Vice-
President of the Panchayat. It is well settled that a provision
in a statute shall not be evaded by shift or contrivance and
such conducts are impliedly forbidden and a court of law will
not tolerate such an evasion of a statute as it amounts to a
positive fraud on the statute [See Craies on Statute Law 7 th
edition, page 78]. It is also well settled that a colourable
attempt of a party to evade the provisions of a statute while
complying with the letter of the statute would also amount to
fraud on the statute. It is so held in Ramsden v. Lupton,
[L.R.] 9 Q.B. 17. The relevant portion of the said judgment
reads thus:
It is rather difficult to put into any other form what exactly
is meant by an arrangement that is a fraud upon an Act of
Parliament of this sort. I perfectly understand the
expression, and it may be a very legitimate one to use
with regard to the bankruptcy laws which are passed for
different purposes, and an attempt to evade which, while
complying with the letter of the statute, has been held by
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..21..
the courts, and has repeatedly been decided, to be, not a
successful evasion of the statute, but such a colourable
attempt to evade the statute as the Court would describe
as a fraud upon it.
In the cases on hand, the attempt of the contesting
respondents was to defeat the requirement of the statute that
there shall be a President and Vice-President for the
Panchayat by complying with the letter of the statute viz, by
making and subscribing the oath before resigning from the
office. Such a course, in the light of the principles aforesaid,
would certainly amount to fraud on the statue, viz, the Act. In
other words, the conduct of the contesting respondents in
making and subscribing the oath without there being any
intention to assume office and discharge the duties and
functions attached to the office, has no legal foundation, for it
is vitiated by fraud. If that be so, the situation created by the
contesting respondents would not fall within the scope of Sub-
section (16) of Section 153 of the Act and the decision of this
Court in T.A.Abdul Azeez would squarely apply.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. It is
declared that the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.7602 of 2021 and
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..22..
7592 of 2021 are entitled to be declared as elected to the
posts of President and Vice-President respectively of the
Panchayat in the election held on 17.02.2021, and entitled to
be administered oath as President and Vice-President.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
rkj
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..23..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7592/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH HELD ON
30.12.20
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION LETTER
OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED
30.12.2020
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION OF THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.2.21
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT REPORTED IN 2006
(4) KLT PAGE 7 DATED 25.8.06
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 3.3.21
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYATH
RAJ (RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT, VICE
PRESIDENT OF MEMBERS) RULES 2000 DATED
26.12.02
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
15.03.2021
EXHIBIT P5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIE DATED
26.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE RETURNING
OFFICER, G58 AVINISSERY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE, CHERU
W.P.(C) Nos.7592 and 7602 of 2021 ..24..
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7602/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
MEETING OF THE PANCHAYATH HELD ON
30.12.20.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER
OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED
30.12.20.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION OF THE
FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 18.2.21.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED
BY THIS HONBLE COURT REPORTED IN 2006
(4) KLT PAGE 7 DATED 25.8.06.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE
PETITIONER DATED 3.3.21.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA PANCHAYAH
RAJ (RESIGNATION OF PRESIDENT, VICE
PRESIDENT OR MEMBERS) RULES 2000 DATED
26.12.02.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
15.03.2021
EXHIBIT P5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIE DATED
26.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE RETURNING
OFFICER, G58 AVINISSERY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AGRICULTURE, CHERU
