The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of giving notice to all concerned members before transacting any business of importance at a meeting, and the discretionary nature of Art.226 jurisdiction in relation to the possibility of the resolution being set aside under S.49 of the Kerala Panchayats Act.

1. The Kodiyathur Panchayat in the Kozhikode District was ordered to be bifurcated as per a notification, Ext. P2, issued by the Government of Kerala on 4-6-1975. The above notification was challenged in O.P. No. 2842 of 1975 by a member of the Panchayat on the ground that it contravened the proviso to S.3 (1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act (in short 'the Act'). Under the said proviso, before issuing any notification cancelling an earlier notification constituting a Panchayat, the Government should give a reasonable opportunity to the Panchayat concerned for showing cause against the proposal and should also consider the explanations and objections, if any, of the said Panchayat. This court refused to exercise jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution on the ground that the notification being not a nullity the person affected by it, viz., the Panchayat alone could challenge its validity and a member of the Panchayat had no locus standi to file the petition. The Original Petition was dismissed on 5-12-75. (For more facts and judgment see Mohammed Haji v. Unni Moyi (1976 KLT. 106). In the meanwhile, on 6-11-75 when a meeting of the Panchayat was held, Ext. P3 resolution was passed authorising the Vice-President of the Panchayat to question Ext P2 notification in appropriate proceedings before this Court. The Vice-President, in pursuance of the above resolution, filed O.P. No. 5224 of 1975 challenging Ext. P2 notification and praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the said notification and for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction for the issue of notice under S.3 of the Panchayat Act before any steps are taken for bifurcating the Panchayat. The State Government as the third respondent contested the petition. In the counter filed, it is stated that the decision to bifurcate the Panchayat was actually taken in pursuance of the resolutions of the Panchayat and representations by the President thereof for expediting the steps for bifurcation. Exts. R1 and R2 are resolutions passed by the Panchayat demanding a bifurcation on the ground that the existing Panchayat covers an unwieldy area where there are no transport facilities. These resolutions were parsed in the year 1972. Steps for bifurcation could not be taken then for more reasons than one. The Election Commission had issued instructions that no further changes in the extent of the existing Panchayat should be made till the delimitation of the Assembly constituencies on the basis of the 1971 Census was completed. The Panchayats in existence on 1-1-1973 were to be taken into account for the purpose of delimitation of Assembly and Parliamentary constituencies. Ext R3 dated 13-2-73 is the letter received by the Director of Panchayats to the above effect. On 20-8-74 another representation was received by the Government from the President of the Kodiyathur Panchayat for finalisation of the steps for bifurcation of the Panchayat. When the impediments were over a draft notification was prepared by the Director of Panchayats. The Government accepted the draft and the notification was published in the Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 4-6-76. The bifurcation was to take effect and the proposed Panchayats were to come into existence on 16-6-1975. The State took the stand that since the bifurcation was effected at the instance of the Panchayat, there has been no violation of the proviso to S.3 of the Act and the notification is not liable to be cancelled. It was contended that the Vice-President is not invested with authority under the Act and had no locus standi to represent the Kodiyathur Panchayat. The State also challenged the validity of the resolution passed on 6-11-75 authorising the Vice-President to take steps for the cancellation of Ext. P2 notification. A learned single Judge of this Court disposed of the Original Petition holding that Ext. P3 resolution dated 6-11-75 authorising the Vice-President to move this court was invalid as such, t