IMPORTANT POINTS
Conjoint reading of section 35(1)(f) of the Act, 1994 with rule 3 of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases) Rules, 1995, makes it clear that if any of the circumstances provided thereunder is undertaken by the appellant, other than the exception provided thereto, the appellant would be disqualified from continuing as a ward member of the Grama Panchayat and exception provided thereunder is only with respect to the work if he undertakes the work for and on behalf of the Grama Panchayat as a convener of a beneficiary committee etc. etc. who had no personal interest in the execution of the contract and not in receipt of money.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

Instant appeal is directed against the judgment of the writ court in W.P.(C) No.32745/2019 dated 6.1.2020, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the order passed by the Kerala State Election Commission, disqualifying the petitioner as a member of ward No.1 of Edavetty Grama Panchayat, Idukki District in the election held in November, 2015.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows;

3. While the appellant was continuing as a member of ward No.1 of aforesaid Grama Panchayat, 2nd respondent filed a petition as O.P.No.107/2018 before the Kerala State Election Commission under section 36 r/w. section 35(1)(f) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for declaring that the appellant has incurred disqualification for being continued as a member of the Edavetty Grama Panchayat.

4. After taking into consideration the evidence tendered by the respective parties and the documents, the Kerala State Election Commission has disqualified the appellant under section 35(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The grievance of the appellant is that, the Commission had not taken into consideration the scope of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Disqualification of Candidates and Members in Certain Cases), Rules, 1995 whereby rule 3 clearly provides that, a member shall not be deemed to have any interest in subsisting contract when he undertakes any work for the benefit of the community. According to the appellant, the alleged works undertaken by the appellant are installation of citizen information boards under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act as directed in Ext.P4 communication of the Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi dated 7.4.2017.

5. The paramount contention advanced by Mr. S. Mohamed Al Rafi, learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that, the Kerala State Election Commission has passed the impugned order without properly examining the rules and the nature of work involved in the installation of citizen information boards and that Ext.P4 communication issued by the Central Government reveals that, the citizen information boards are placed for MNREGA work site for providing information to the beneficiaries and funds for those works are also provided by the Central Government. According to the appellant, unless the works were executed expeditiously, the funds would have lapsed. Hence, the works were executed for the benefit of the community, not as a contractor, but as a representative of the community and therefore, according to the learned counsel for appellant, rule 3 of Rules, 1995 specifically carves out an exception to Section 35(1)(f) of Act, 1994, and makes a member liable only if a member acquires any interest in any subsisting contract except as permitted by rules made under the Act, 1994.

6. It is contended that the writ court has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Act as well as Rules in a proper perspective, which culminated in the dismissal of the writ petition. It is also pleaded that, the writ court has not exercised the judicial discretion in an appropriate manner and therefore, there being a legal infirmity in the judgment passed, it is liable to be interfered with in this writ appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission has advanced arguments supporting the decision of the State Election Commission as well as the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge.

8. We have heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. S. Mohammed Al Rafi and Mr. Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala State Election Commission and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

9. The subject issue revolves around section 35(1)(f) of the Act, 1994 and rule 3(iii) of Rules, 1995. Rule 35 of Act, 1994 deals with disqualification of members. Sub-section (1) thereto states that “subject to the provisions of Section 36 or Section 102, a member shall cease to