In this case, There was a dispute between Section 155(3) of Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Kerala Act 13 of the 1994) and Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Resignation of President, Vice President or Members Rules) 2000.
Under Section 155 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and Rule 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj 2000, the Secretary may refer the dispute regarding resignation, which arises, to the Commission or the concerned person himself may file a petition before the Election Commission. If the reference by the Secretary or the petition by the person himself, is within the time(within 15 days) stipulated in Section 155(3), that is liable to be considered by the Commission on merits.
Petitioner was a member of the Anad Grama Panchayat who submitted his resignation before the Secretary of the Panchayat and the same was accepted on 11-8-2008. Thereafter Petitioner sent a letter to the Secretary on 25-8-2008 alleging that his resignation had been obtained under threat and coercion by a group of people. The said letter was received by the Secretary on 26-8-2008 and a copy was faxed to the Election Commission on the same day.
Petitioner thereafter filed a petition before the State Election Commission in respect of the said dispute. The Election Commission passed an order rejecting the application on the ground that the petition is barred by limitation, the same having been filed beyond 15 days from the date on which the resignation took effect.
The Petitioner contended that he having raised a dispute regarding his resignation, by filing a petition before the Secretary, within 15 days, the same would satisfy the requirement of Section 155(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The learned Single Judge upon a harmonious construction of the relevant provisions in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Resignation Rules, and placing reliance on precedents accepted the contention and directed the Election Commission to consider the petition on merits.
It was stated by the court that Section 155(3) specifically mentions reference of a dispute regarding resignation which arises, to the State Election Commission. Rule 5 refers to a petition filed by any person having dispute regarding the resignation. As such, the rule cannot be said to be in consonance with the Section. But the Court is of opinion that a harmonious construction of the two is called for, which is to the effect that either the Secretary can refer the dispute by himself or if he does not refer the dispute, the person raising the dispute can file a petition before the Commission within 15 days. The Scheme of the Act generally also contemplates both reference as well as a petition to the Commission, That being so, the court is inclined to adopt the view that under Section 155 and Rule 5, the Secretary may refer, the dispute regarding resignation, which arises, to the Commission or the person himself may file a petition before the Election Commission under Rule 5, either of which, if is within the time stipulated in the proviso to Section 155(3), that would be liable to be considered by the Commission on merits.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the court applied the doctrine of Harmonious Construction by interpreting the true intention of the law maker and the provisions are construed so as to avoid head-on clash, to give maximum effect to them and to render justice.
BY: ANKIT RAJPUT
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS