The main legal point established in the judgment is that the urgency in taking a decision and the lack of specific provisions for a secret ballot for the no confidence motion supported the voting method by show of hands.

The Honourable Chief Justice Mr (H.L.Gokhale)

The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned single Judge whereby the learned single Judge by her order dated 2nd February, 2010 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. The said writ petition sought to challenge the Minutes of the Meeting of the Thiruppanandal Panchayat Union Council held on 04th December, 2009, as recorded by the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The minutes recorded that a No Confidence Motion had been passed against the appellant by show of hands.

2. The appeal raises a question as to whether, in the facts of this case, the second respondent was correct in allowing the decision on the No Confidence Motion to be taken by show of hands or whether, the second respondent ought to have taken it by a secret ballot. The question for consideration is as to which of the two methods is contemplated to arrive at the ‘result of voting’ under sub-section (12) of Section 212 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’).

3. The short facts leading to this appeal are this wise:-

(a)The appellant was elected to the Thiruppanandal Panchayat Union Council in the election held some time in October, 2006. The panchayat union consists of, in all, 17 members. Though the panchayats are supposed to function on non-party basis, in the election, the political composition of the members elected was as follows: -

(i) Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) -- 10

(ii) Indian National Congress (INC) -- 3

(iii) Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) -- 3

(iv) Independent -- 1

The appellant belongs to the PMK party.

(b) It so transpired that on 16th June, 2009, the independent member was disqualified on the ground of he being in employment, and necessary Government Order vide G.O.Ms.No.50, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department was issued to that effect. The appellant filed writ petition before this Court being W.P.No.13258 of 2009, but no stay was granted thereon. Consequently, the bye-election was held for that seat, and a Congress candidate has got elected.

(c) On 2nd November, 2009, 14 members of that Panchayat Union gave a petition to the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer that they have lost confidence in the appellant. As per law, notice was given to the appellant on 7th November, 2009, to which the appellant gave an explanation on 15th November, 2009. By notice dated 16th November, 2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer called a meeting on 4th December, 2009. On 3rd December, 2009, the other two members of PMK asked the Revenue Divisional Officer to hold a secret ballot, which was followed by a reminder on 4th December, 2009 when the motion was moved for that purpose. Without giving any decision on these representations, either accepting or rejecting that request, the second respondent proceeded to put to vote the No Confidence Motion, which was carried by 14 versus 3 votes on 4th December, 2009. Sub-section (3) of Section 212 of the Act, requires notice to be given by 3/4th of the elected members. The figure of 3/4th members comes to 10.2, which means that the minimum member will be 10 or 11 members. The motion of No Confidence was signed by 14 members. For passing the resolution, 4/5th of the members have to vote in support of the No Confidence motion. In the house of 17 members, 4/5th comes to 13.6 members, which, if rounded off, will be 14. In the instant case, 14 members voted in favour of the No Confidence Motion by raising hands. Therefore, the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has recorded in his minutes dated 4th December, 2009 that No Confidence motion has been passed.

(d) It is material to note that, as pointed out earlier, the independent candidate, who was disqualified, had filed a writ petition. It came to be allowed on 29th January, 2010. The fact, however, remains that during the period when the representation was given by 14 members to the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer th