Point of Law : If the Chairman does not convene a meeting even after fulfilling the conditions in Rule 7(1) and its proviso, the members have a right to convene the meeting

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners are the elected members of the Thrissur Corporation Council. The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 and P4. Ext.P2 is a proceeding issued by the 3rd respondent rejecting the request of the petitioners and 22 other members of the Council for convening a meeting in accordance with Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995 (Hereinafter referred to as Rules 1995). Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the 2nd respondent by which the 2nd respondent also rejected the prayer of the petitioners and 22 others for making the arrangement to convene the meeting as per Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1995.

2. The short facts are like this:- According to the petitioners, the master plan that had been purportedly evolved for Thrissur Corporation had given rise to widespread criticism alleging lack of transparency in its creation and for its contents. It is stated by the petitioners that the demand to discuss the master plan and issues concerning the same had been raised by them within the Corporation Council and before the general public. It is the case of the petitioners that though it was proposed to be discussed at one point of time, the 3rd respondent consistently scuttled the attempts to deliberate the said matter in the Council. Hence, Ext.P1 notice was issued under Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 1995 before the 3rd respondent by the petitioners and 22 other members. But as per Ext.P2 reply, the 3rd respondent rejected the request based on a legal opinion. It is stated in Ext.P2 that two writ petitions are pending before this Court as W.P.(C.) No. 20287/2021 and W.P.(C.) No. 12935/2021. According to the 3rd respondent, if a meeting is convened to discuss about the cancellation of the master plan, that will affect the cases pending before this Court. Since Ext.P2 was issued by the 3rd respondent, it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners and other members of the Council decided to convene the meeting in accordance with Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1995. For making arrangements for convening the meeting in accordance with Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1995, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P3 to the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent rejected the same as evident by Ext.P4 based on Ext.P2 decision of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard Advocate V.M.Syamkumar, who appeared for the petitioners, and Advocate Ananthakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel who is appeared for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if 1/3rd members of the Council request the 3rd respondent to convene a meeting of the Council, the 3rd respondent has no other option but to convene the meeting, if the conditions in the proviso to Rule 7 are complied. The counsel submitted that, there is no case to the respondents that the conditions provided in the proviso to Rule 7(1) are not complied. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 order is unsustainable. The counsel further submitted that when the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent to make arrangements for convening the meeting in accordance with Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1995, the 2nd respondent simply endorsed the order of the 3rd respondent and rejected the same as per Ext.P4. According to the petitioners, this is in total violation of Rule 7(2). Therefore, the counsel for the petitioners contended that Exts.P2 and P4 are unsustainable, and it is in total violation of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1995. The Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The Standing Counsel submitted that the master plan of Thrissur Corporation was sanctioned by the Government in accordance with Section 36(8) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (In short Act, 2016). It was further stated that the notice regarding the sanctioned master plan was published by the Government in the extra ordinary Gazette No.1995/1995 dated 26.2.2021, wh