The necessity of immediate action and of promulgating an Ordinance is a matter purely for the subjective satisfaction of the Governor. He is the sole judge as to the existence of the circumstances necessitating the making of an Ordinance. His satisfaction is not a justiciable matter. It cannot be questioned on ground of error of judgment or otherwise in Court.

Headnote:
Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. 69 of 1984), Kerala Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1984 (Ordinance No.68 of 1984), Kerala Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Ordinance of 1984 (Ordinance No. 67 of 1984) - Constitutional validity challenged - Held, the Governor, as the constitutional head of the State, must have, presumably, acted on the advice of the Council of Ministers as required under Art.163 of the Constitution; and in terms of clause (3) of that Article, the question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court - Ordinance No. 69 of 1984, by omitting the proviso to S.11(1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960, rendered the Government powerless to extend the term of members of the Panchayat, with retrospective effect from the first day of September 1984 - Ordinance No. 68 of 1984, by omitting the proviso to S.8(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960, and Ordinance No.67 of 1984, by omitting the proviso to S.67(1) of of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act, 1961, took away the power vested in the first respondent to extend the term of office of the Councillors, Mayor, Dy. Mayor, Standing Committees, and other Committees of the Municipal Corporations of Trivandrum, Calicut and Cochin - Ordinances are not unconstitutional.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were the Vice-President of Cheriyanad Panchayat and the President of Aryad Panchayat for the period from 1-10-1979 to 30-9-1984. The 2nd petitioner also claims to be the General Secretary of the Kerala Panchayats' Association, Trivandrum. The first petitioner had filed O.P.No. 7163 of 1984 on 16-8-1984 against the respondents and others. In that writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 22303 of 1984 filed by the petitioner therein (first petitioner herein) was disposed of by this Court on 26-10-1984; and a true copy thereof has been produced and marked as Ext. P1 in the present O.P. By Ext. P1 interim order this Court had restrained the respondents from appointing any administrative committees or special officer in the place of elected representatives of the Panchayats for a period of four months from the date of that order and had directed the issue of appropriate notifications, under the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.11 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The promulgation of the Ordinance, when the Legislative Assembly was not in session, has to be on the satisfaction of the Governor that circumstances existed which rendered it necessary for him to take immediate action. It is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the Governor, not justiciable in a court of law. In promulgating the Ordinance the Governor as the constitutional head of the State, must have, presumably, acted on the advice of the Council of Ministers as required under Art.163 of the Constitution; and in terms of clause (3) of that Article, the question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the Governor shall not be inquired into in any court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No. 69 of 1984), Kerala Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1984 (Ordinance No.68 of 1984), Kerala Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Ordinance of 1984 (Ordinance No. 67 of 1984) are unconstitutional? 2. Whether the Governor, as the constitutional head of the State, must have, presumably, acted on the advice of the Council of Ministers as required under Art.163 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The necessity of immediate action and of promulgating an Ordinance is a matter purely for the subjective satisfaction of the Governor. He is the sole judge as to the existence of the circumstances necessitating the making of an Ordinance. His satisfaction is not a justiciable matter. It cannot be questioned on ground of error of judgment or otherwise in Court. 2. The satisfaction of the President is a subjective one and cannot be tested by reference to any objective tests. It is deliberately and advisedly subjective because the matter in respect to which he is to be satisfied is of such a nature that its decision must necessarily be left to the executive branch of Government.
Final Decision: Writ petitions are dismissed.

Judgment :-

1. The backdrop of the case and the basic questions of law in all the four Original Petitions being the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in O.P.No.8517 of 1984 is directed against the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 ('hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No. 69 of 1984), with particular reference to S.3 thereof. A true copy of Ordinance No. 69 of 1984 published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 30th September, 1984 has been produced and marked as Ext. P4. The challenge in O. P.No.8953 of 1984 and 8630 of 1984 is directed against the Kerala Municipalities (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No.68 of 1984); a true copy of this has been marked as Ext. P2 in O.P.No. 8630 of 1984. The challenge in O.P.No. 8953 of 1984 is directed against the Kerala Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Ordinance of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Ordinance No. 67 of 1984). For the sake of convenience we would take up for consideration O.P.No.8517 of 1984 in the first instance.

3. The facts are not much in dispute. Petitioners 1 and 2 respectively were the Vice-President of Cheriyanad Panchayat and the President of Aryad Panchayat for the period from 1-10-1979 to 30-9-1984. The 2nd petitioner also claims to be the General Secretary of the Kerala Panchayats' Association, Trivandrum. The first petitioner had filed O.P.No. 7163 of 1984 on 16-8-1984 against the respondents and others. In that writ petition, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 22303 of 1984 filed by the petitioner therein (first petitioner herein) was disposed of by this Court on 26-10-1984; and a true copy thereof . has been produced and marked as Ext. P1 in the present O.P. The operative portion of that order reads as follows: "In the result, the C.M.P. is disposed of as follows:

1. Respondents are restrained from appointing any administrative committees or a special officer for any of the elected Panchayats in the State for a period of four months commencing from today.

2. Respondents will naturally take necessary steps for issue of appropriate notification under the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.11 of the Act."

It is further averred in the writ petition that a Division Bench of this Court declined to stay the operation of Ext. P1 interim order though an appeal was filed and interim stay was sought by the 1st respondent. It is the admitted case that that writ petition was ultimately dismissed as not pressed and the writ appeal against Ext. P1 order has also been dismissed.

4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents with political motives had omitted to take the steps necessary for holding the election of members to the Panchayats. S.11 (2) of the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 (Act 32 of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provides as follows:

"Ordinary vacancies in the office of a member of a Panchayat shall be filled at ordinary elections which shall be fixed by the election authority to take place on such day or days within three months before the occurrence of the vacancies as he thinks fit.

Provided that the Government may for sufficient cause direct or permit the holding of any ordinary elections after the occurrence of the vacancy."

In terms of S.2(19) of the Act, ordinary vacancy' is a vacancy occurring by efflux of time; and ordinary election means an election held to fill an ordinary vacancy. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents knowingly and deliberately omitted to make the necessary preparations and take steps for election of the Members to the Panchayat, which is a body constituted for the local administration of the Panchayat area under the Act, and this inaction on the part of the respondents was calculated to make an unjustifiable and unfair gain to the ruling parties as their chance to succeed in the election, if held within the time specified under S.11(2) of the Act in a majo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis