K. M. Joseph, J.

1. The principal question which arises in both these writ petitions is whether the oath taken by the third respondent in W. P. (C) No. 28913/05 who is none other than the first petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 30262/05 as Deputy Chairperson, before a person other than the Chairperson is valid in law. The Office of the Chairperson of the Municipality is reserved for members of Schedule Caste Community. Hence both the writ petitions are disposed of by a common Judgment.

W. P. (C) No. 28913/05P

The writ petitioner is a voter in a Ward of Palakkad Municipality. He is also a Member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist). He would allege that he is a responsible office bearer of the Democratic Youth Federation of India. In the recently concluded election to the Municipalities, 50 Councillors were elected to the Palakkad Municipal Council, of whom 17 belong to the Left Democratic Front and 17 to the Bharatheeya Janatha Party, while 16 were elected under the United Democratic Front. It is not in dispute that all the Councillors took oath of office on 2.10.2005. The election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson was to be held on 6.10.2005. It is the petitioner's case that all the Councillors attended the council meeting convened for the purpose. However, no nominations were forthcoming in respect of the Chairperson. It is further stated that the Returning Officer discontinued the meeting for lunch break and thereafter, the meeting was continued after lunch break, to elect the Deputy Chairperson on the very same day as scheduled earlier. In the election thus held, the third respondent was declared elected. It is stated that 17 Councillors belonging to the BJP voted in favour of the third respondent. 16 Members belonging to the UDF abstained. 17 Councillors voted in favour of one Shri A. K. Chandrankutty. However, the votes cast by two Councillors owing allegiance to LDF were declared invalid. It is stated that the first respondent, namely the Returning Officer thereafter hastily administered oath of office to the third respondent. The case of the petitioner is that R.4(2) of the Kerala Municipality (Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) Rules, 1995 was violated in the matter of election of the third, respondent. It is his further case that S.143 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act mandates that the Deputy Chairperson shall make and subscribe such oath or affirmation before the Chairperson, after the Chairperson has been elected. However, the oath was administered by not the Chairperson, but by the Returning Officer. It is pointed out that this is violative of the law as declared by this Court in Haridasan Palayil v. The Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly (2003 (3) KLT 119). Ext. P3 is a notice issued by the third respondent purporting to convene the meeting of the Council. R.4(1) and (2) of the Kerala Municipality (Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) Rules, 1995 reads as follows:

"4. The procedure for conducting election meeting: -- (1) The Returning Officer shall hold the election of the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson or both at a meeting of the elected Councillors of the Municipality specially convened for the purpose in the Municipal Office concerned. (2) If the election of the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson are held in the same meeting, then the procedure for election of the Deputy Chairperson shall start only after the election of the Chairperson and declaration of the result thereof are completed."

S.143(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act is extracted hereunder:

"143. Oath or affirmation (2) The Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson shall also, before entering upon their Offices, make and subscribe an oath or affirmation in the form set out in the said Schedule. The Chairperson shall make and subscribe such oath or affirmation before the Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf, and the Deputy Chairperson shall make and subscribe such oath or affirmation before the