J.B. Koshy, J.

First petitioner is the President of the third respondent Grama Panchayat, second petitioner is the Vice President and third and fourth petitioners are members of the Grama Panchayat. The fourth respondent along with five others moved a 'no confidence motion', Ext. P1, dated 3.4.2000 before the Panchayat Deputy Director, Alappuzha. The Panchayat Deputy Director by notice dated 5.4.2000 convened a meeting on 25.4.2000 at 11.00 A.M.. The contention of the petitioners is that at the time when'no confidence motion' was given the Panchayat Deputy Director has no authority to receive 'no confidence motion' and at any event, she has no power to preside over such a meeting. It is also contended by petitioners that when the meeting was conducted at 11.00 A.M. two objections were raised. First regarding jurisdiction of the Panchayat Deputy Director in convening the meeting and presiding over the meeting and the second objection is regarding non-issuance of notice to the Vice President. It is contended by the petitioners that the Panchayat Deputy Director, second respondent, was convinced about the objections regarding her absence of power in convening the meeting and the meeting was adjourned. But due to pressure from outside six members of the Panchayat again assembled at 1.00 P.M. and it was presided by the second respondent herself and Ext. P1 resolution of no confidence was passed at 1.45 P.M. Petitioners rely on various newspaper reports and Asianet coverage on the aspect.

2. S.157 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as The act) provides that 'no confidence motion' can be moved against the President or Vice President only in accordance with the procedure laid down. Therefore, it is mandatory that provisions in the Act have to be complied with while moving'no confidence motion". S.157(2) of the Act provides that such proposed motion should be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf. S.157(2) reads as follows:

"Written notice in such form as may be prescribed of the intention to move any motion referred to in sub-s.(1) signed by such number of elected members of the Panchayat concerned as shall constitute not less than one third of the sanctioned strength of elected members of that Panchayat, together with a copy of the motion which is proposed to be moved shall be delivered in person by any of the elected members of the Panchayat signing the notice, to the officer as may be authorised by the Government in this behalf." S.157(5) provides as follows:

"A meeting convened under this section shall be presided over by an officer authorised by the Government in this behalf."

Thereafter, S.157(5) was amended by Amendment Act 13/99 with effect from

24.3.1999 by which such meetings should be presided over by the President if the 'no confidence motion' is against the Vice President and it should be presided over by the Vice President if the motion is against the President. It is specifically mentioned by introducing sub-s.5A that an officer authorised by the Government can attend as an observer. Therefore, person who was authorised to receive the 'no confidence motion' cannot preside over the meeting in view of sub-s.5A introduced by Act 13/1999. Again the Act was amended by Ordinance 3/2000 with effect from 18.1.2000. As per the Ordinance, motion of no confidence should be moved to the officer nominated by the Election Commissioner. The above Ordinance was replaced by Act incorporating the same provision and that is applicable from 18.1.2000. Therefore, only an officer authorised by the Election Commissioner can receive the 'no confidence motion' against the President or Vice President after 18.1.2000. Since Ext. P1 was accepted after 18.1.2000 and even after publication of the Amendment Act in March 2000, it cannot be stated that it is protected as something done correctly under t