1. The petitioner is a member from Ward No.8 of Kadambanad Grama Panchayat. Aggrieved by the intimation given by the Secretary of the Panchayat that he has ceased to be a member in the Panchayat, under Section 37(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), he approached the State Election Commission by filing O.P.No.6/2009. The Commission, by the impugned order Ext.P4, upheld the communication issued by the Secretary, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The intimation issued by the Secretary has been produced as Ext.P1, wherein it is mentioned that since the petitioner had not attended the meetings of the Committee of the Panchayat held after 16.10.2008 for a period of three months (five ordinarily meetings and one urgent meeting) in spite of receipt of notice, he has ceased to be a member under Section 35 (k) of the Act, from 16.1.2009.

3. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Shri V. Chitambaresh, Shri Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission and Shri K. Shaj, learned counsel for the second respondent.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the intimation itself is not in tune with the provisions of Section 35(k) of the Act. The notice has not been properly served for the meetings concerned, by the Secretary of the Panchayat which amounts to infraction of the procedure laid down in Rule 3(1)(d) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Manner of Service of Notices) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules'). It is pointed out that certain notices have been served by affixture and the said method can be resorted to only if the means of service of notice under Rule 3(1)(a), (b) and (c) are exhausted. The employee of the Panchayat who was deputed for serving notice, has clearly acted in violation of the provisions of these rules.

5. The first question raised is about the validity of the intimation given as Ext.P1. The relevant provision is Section 35(k) of the Act which along with the provisos, are reproduced below:

"35. Disqualifications of members.--Subject to the provisions of Section 36 or Section 102, a member shall cease to hold office as such, if he--

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

(k) absents himself without the permission of the Panchayat concerned from its meeting or the meeting of the Standing Committee thereof for a period of three consecutive months reckoned from the date of commencement of his term of office or of the last meeting that he attended, or of the restoration to office as member under sub-section (1) of Section 37, as the case may be, or if within the said period, only in less than three meetings of the Panchayat or of the Standing Committee as the case may be, have been held, absents himself from three consecutive meetings held after the said date: Provided that no meeting from which a member absented himself shall be counted against him under this clause if.-

(i) due notice of that meeting was not given to him; or'

(ii) the meeting was held after giving shorter notice than that prescribed for an ordinary meeting; or

(iii) the meeting was held on a requisition of members; or:

Provided further that no permission shall be granted by the Panchayat to a member for absenting himself from meetings of the Panchayat or of the Standing Committee for a continuous period of more than six months."

It is pointed out that going by the first limb of the section, the absence should be for the meetings of the Panchayat for a period of three consecutive months reckoned from the date of commencement of his term of office or of the last meeting that he attended. Herein, the last meeting he attended was on 16.10.2008. If three consecutive months are counted from October 2008, it will be over only by the end of January 2009. Herein, the notice Ext.P1 is dated 24.1.2009, prior to the expiry of the three months period. The date on which the last meeting was conducted is 12.1.2009. Therefore, it is submitted that the notice itself is