The court affirmed that procedural compliance in no-confidence motions is paramount, reinforcing the legitimacy of the State Election Commission's authority.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext.P16 communication by which the 1st respondent-State Election Commission has dismissed the petition dated 15.06.2022 of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the elected President of Mannarkkad Block Panchayat. Respondents 5 to 15, who are Members of the Block Panchayat, issued Ext.P1 notice of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner on 05.11.2021. There was no quorum on 20.11.2021. The petitioner states that on 16.12.2021, she received an alleged resignation submitted by her. The petitioner immediately informed the State Election Commission that she has not submitted resignation.

3. The State Election Commission rejected the alleged resignation letter since it is not in the proper format. Respondents 5 to 15 approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.3056 of 2022 challenging the said order of the State Election Commission, which is still pending, contends the petitioner. The forensic examination of the resignation letter conducted pursuant to the order of this Court revealed that the signature therein varies in many distinct aspects.

4. Respondents 5 to 15 gave a notice of No Confidence Motion against the petitioner on 23.05.2022. This Court, as per the judgment dated 02.06.2022 in W.P.(C) No.17605/2022, declared the said notice as invalid. The very next day, on 03.06.2022, respondents 5 to 15 gave another notice of No Confidence Motion. The 2nd respondent on 04.06.2022 issued a notice stating that the Motion will be considered on 16.06.2022. Though the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.19105/2022 against the said notice, the writ petition was dismissed on 14.06 2022.

5. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P14 petition dated

10.06.2022 to the State Election Commission seeking to remove the 2nd respondent-Secretary to District Panchayat from the post of Presiding Officer. However, No Confidence Motion was moved on 16.06.2022 and the petitioner was removed from the post of President of District Panchayat. The State Election Commission dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner as per Ext.P16 order dated 17.06.2022. By Ext.P18 notice dated 22.06.2022, the election of new President was scheduled to be held on 04.07.2022.

6. The petitioner challenges Ext.P16 order of the State Election Commission upholding the No Confidence Motion. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent has not acted in a free and fair manner in dealing with the notice on No Confidence Motion. The dismissal of the petition of the petitioner by the State Election Commission solely relying on Ext.P17 judgment cannot be justified.

7. The Election Commission should have ordered an enquiry in the matter taking into consideration the gravity of the bias, contended the counsel for the petitioner. The conduct of the 2nd respondent in not accepting Ext.P15 petition is misuse of power. The 2nd respondent acted in a mala fide manner.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respective Standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents and the counsel representing respondents 5 to 15.

9. The challenge made by the petitioner in this writ petition is over Ext.P16 order passed by the State Election Commission on Ext.P14 petition filed by the petitioner. In Ext.P14, the petitioner urged that the Secretary to the District Panchayat was present in the office on 23.05.2022 and the notice of No Confidence Motion was received by him. The 2nd respondent-Secretary sent a letter to the Secretary of Block Panchayat seeking details of Members of the Block Panchayat. The letter was sent when the Secretary was on leave. The Secretary created fraudulent documents. The Secretary was not impartial.

10. In the petition before the State Election Commission, the petitioner has challenged a notice dated 03.06.2022 (marked as Ext.P3 in the petition before the Commission). The legality of the notice dated 03.06.2022 was subjected to scrutiny by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19105/2022. This Court found that the notice