JUDGMENT :

The petitioner, who is an elected member of Block Panchayat, Mannarkkad, is before this Court seeking to declare that Exts.P14 and P15 are invalid and illegal and to direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P16 petition in accordance with law and till then the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P14 and P15 may be kept in abeyance.

2. The petitioner states that she was elected as member of the Block Panchayat and was thereafter elected as President of the Block Panchayat in Mannarkkad. Respondents 5 to 15 issued notice for moving No Confidence Motion against the petitioner on 05.11.2021. On 20.11.2021, the 2nd respondent intimated to the 1st respondent that the meeting of No Confidence Motion could not take place due to want of quorum.

3. On 23.05.2022, respondents 5 to 15 gave a notice of intention to move No Confidence Motion against the petitioner. The petitioner would submit that the notice is not in the prescribed format as provided under Section 157(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1994’) and Rule 15 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Meetings) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1995’). The said notice was declared invalid and illegal in the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.17605 of 2022.

4. The petitioner states that respondents 5 to 15 again gave a third notice to move No Confidence Motion against the petitioner as per Ext.P14. The petitioner submits that Ext.P14 is not in the proper form and it cannot be treated as a valid notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Ext.P14 notice is not in accordance with the format prescribed as per Section 157(3) of the Act, 1994 and Rule 15(2) of the Rules, 1995 and it is therefore illegal and unsustainable.

5. One of the members, who is signatory to Ext.P14, has signed a receipt at the bottom of Ext.P14 notice. The provisions of Section 157 do not permit to endorse the date and time by the member presenting the motion. There cannot be an endorsement like “received”, “receipt” in Ext.P14. The learned counsel submits that the provisions of Section 157 of the Act, 1994 have to be construed strictly and there cannot be any relaxation or addition or words, signature, etc., in the prescribed format of the notice. Ext.P14 is therefore unsustainable and cannot be acted upon.

6. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Anitha v. Kanjirappilly Block Panchayat [2004 (3) KLT 211], wherein this Court held that Section 157 of the Act, 1994, with its heading ‘Motion of No Confidence’ is a comprehensive code of procedure. A motion expressing want of confidence is to be moved in accordance with the procedure laid down there alone. The mandatory requirements under Section 157(2) are a written notice signed by required number of members and a copy of the motion to be moved. It has to be delivered by any of the signatories, to the authorised officer, and in person. No relaxation of any of the procedure is permissible, as everyone of them are mandatory requirements.

7. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sreeram Redddy and another v. Returning Officer and others [(2009) 8 SCC 736], the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that while interpreting a special statute, which is a self contained code, the Court must consider the intention of the legislature.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further urged that once the intended notice of No Confidence Motion is presented, it has to be in the custody of the 2nd respondent and no other person is entitled to make any endorsement in the said notice. It is to maintain the sanctity of the motion of no confidence. The endorsement of the 8th respondent would also mean that there could be manipulation after the submission of Ext.P14 notice to the 2nd respondent. Ext.P14 notice is therefore liable to be declared as invalid and illegal.

9. The Standing Counsel entered appearance for the 1st respondent and defended the writ pe